Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[newpolitics]

The OP is full of evidence. You have the inability to recognize spiritual nature, and you can't envision any incarnation of god that isn't a deity or religious. There are no semantics games, there are semantics that need to be clearly understood and defined before any debate can happen. You can't even comprehend the argument, because of your shallow mind that is closed to anything other than your shallow-minded preconceptions of "invisible people in da sky" ...that's the maturity level we're dealing with here. You should just continue your boycott of this thread, before someone comes and embarasses you again.

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

Bullshit, you damned liar.

It is at least evidence of that belief if nothing else.

If it is evidence of spiritualism or anything else is up to the person viewing said evidence.

IS it scientific? **** no, but not all evidence is scientific, dullard.

How about you save your personal attacks for when you actually have an point. As it is, I could care less that you THINK I'm a liar. The reality is that I don't buy into your bullshit god that has NO ******* EVIDENCE OR LOGIC. I'm not the one who feels the need to prove something to everyone, unlike you massively insecure theists and deists who need to ram your gods down everyones throat, and anyone who doesn't accept this line of bullshit you call names, like a child would do. You're a ******* joke.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

Lol, you mock what he is saying and then use that as proof he cant say anything of value?

roflmao.

You secularists have lost the debate a long time ago, but you persist in back slapping each other for morale's sake, I suppose.

Your bullshit is not selling. Get a ******* life.

You're a ******* idiot dude.

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong. It is your illogical conclusions from non- evidence that make the OP fail, and fail hard. Human belief is not evidence. It never will be. Give up, because you aren't convincing anybody except yourself.

Human belief IS evidence when 95% of humans through all of human history believe something, and believe it profoundly. It may be circumstantial, but that isn't the only evidence presented, it's just a part of the evidence. There is physical evidence from science and nature, no other living things practice spirituality. So it can't be an "evolved" attribute. The explanations (excuses) you've presented for why it exists, all contradict nature and science discovery. Other upper primates have the same brain function and structure, so it's not that, unless you have evidence of chimps attending Sunday School.

Oh, an the purpose of the thread is not to convince you. Please try and let that soak in, because I don't want you to be disillusioned by what I have presented. I merely laid out the case for definitive proof of god's existence. You are free to agree or disagree, and you obviously disagree.... haven't refuted my argument, but that's okay, you can still disagree.

Among numerous other logical fallacies being employed throughout this thread by Boss, he is begging the question when he attempts to use "spiritual evidence", which is a form of circular logic. When I first mentioned this, he goes "begging what question?!!" Obviously ignorant to common logical fallacies, he has no problem in making them, and defending them without realizing what and where they are. His conclusion (the spiritual's existence) is included in his premise (spiritual evidence), when he says, "you must be able to see spiritual evidence in order to believe in the spiritual." This is circular because in order to see spiritual evidence, you must believe in the spiritual, which is his conclusion. This is what he doesn't seem to understand. Essentially, all he is saying is, "you must believe in the spiritual, in order to believe the spiritual." It is tautological, and as such, says nothing. Yet, Boss is a charlatan and a sophist who tries to pass off this non-argument as something of substance when it has none. It is intellectual dishonesty and quackery at its finest. Any philosophy professor or logician, or even a rational theologian who does believe in a spiritual realm, would look at this and laugh their asses off.

Usually, when someone says "begs the question..." it is followed by the question that is begged. That's why I asked you what question, you didn't say, you left the sentence incomplete, and it made no logical sense to me.

It's very simple, physical science can't rely on spiritual evidence, you will agree, correct? In order to properly evaluate physical science, we must look at physical evidence and not spiritual. Well, the same rule applies logically to spiritual nature, it can't rely on physical evidence. In order to properly evaluate spiritual nature, you have to evaluate spiritual evidence. This is problematic if you don't believe in spiritual nature. It's not intellectual dishonesty, it's not quackery, it's called LOGIC. There can never be physical evidence of spiritual entities, or they become physical entities, proven by physical science.

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds. He even denied that his OP was about objective reality, which basically means he concedes his entire argument, since he is not trying to demonstrate anything about reality. Yet, somehow, he doesn't see this as a problem! It's incredible. I guess this would explain why he throws logic and reason out the window, since he is then only trying to prove his own beliefs to himself, which is circular (and involves no one else), and would explain why he has no problem using circular logic left and right. When he decides to actual show something true about OBJECTIVE reality, then maybe other people can start to become involved. As it is, this thread should be entitled "The Mind of Boss."

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything. He is basically being solipsistic, in believing that beliefs determine reality. If you ignore him, he will eventually stop. That is my recommendation for this thread. The more we respond and lengthen this thread, the more validation it is to him that we simply "don't get it" and it strengthens his convictions. I say we let this thread die. Fight the urge to respond to his non-nonse, and any side arguments with the YEC's about evolution should be had elsewhere so we can let this thing fizzle out. Agreed?

Again, the argument is MORE than just "people believe, therefore it's true." If you want to say that it's dubious for a man to claim he has talked to God, and was told to create Abrahamic religion, fine... I have no problem with that argument. This is far more compelling, humans have been spiritually connected since humans first came into existence, and approximately 95% are still (and always have been) spiritual creatures. This is humans most defining attribute, no other species does it. You can't logically explain it away with nature, because it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. You can cling to the debunked excuses you've created, but they aren't supported by science or nature.

I really think we are all wasting our time trying to convince Boss of anything.

Again, you seem to be under the impression this thread is about "convincing" people. No, you're not ever going to convince me, the spiritual nature I connect with daily, and have been connecting with for more than 40 years, is not real. You would be more successful trying to convince me my mother doesn't really exist. So if your hope was, your pathetic excuses and debunked reasoning, was going to "convince" me, you were wrong, and I agree, you should move on from this thread. In fact, I will request that you not respond to this post, or any more here. Just find some other thread to interject your wisdom in, and leave this one for the people who objectively want to tackle the OP argument.

Let me get this straight: Your argument doesn't pertain to objective reality, and you are making an argument while not trying to convince anyone of anything? You do realize this is a debate forum? And that a debate is defined as a forum where there exists an exchange of opposing arguments? And that arguments are defined as an attempt at persuading someone of something? Therefore, you can't be arguing for proof of god, while not trying to convince someone of something. This is self-contradictory, yet again with you! It does me no good to point this out to you, because you will simply ignore this. So, in conclusion, you are either lying about your intentions, or are ignorant as to what an argument actually is.

Go back to school. You have forgotten what words mean.

You fail to counter any of my refutations using logic, instead you simply restate your tired talking points. Apparently you don't know how to use google to look up concepts like "Begging the question" when I have tried twice now to actually explain to you what it means. You aren't trying at all, and so why should anyone else? Then you mock others when they can't grasp your silly notions about what consitututes evidence. You simply stick to your talking points and keep on restating them, and when people get tired of this, you claim victory along with your idiot friends like SJ. There is no point in any of us being here to argue with you, since as I said, this is only about what is in your mind, not in objective reality. One last thing, I never said I was trying to convince you that this spiritual realm doesn't exist. I don't care what you believe, at all. Knock yourself out. I am trying to convince that your premises don't grant your conclusions, because of your numerous logical fallacies. Considering this is a debate forum, which involves arguments which are ALL based on logic, this is all I need to do, and nothing more. I and many others have done this, but you just turn your blinders on and forge ahead like a true idiot. You want to simply believe that your argument is sound and valid, and won't take any hints to the contrary. Take a logic course, for ***** sake.

THERE IS NO POINT TO THIS THREAD. I am going to unsubscribe from receiving any more notification from it. Good to luck to anyone that continues with this dross. Having gone back on my word of abstinence from this thread three times now, because I can't let Boss get away with these crimes of logic, I still think we ought to let this thread die. It's for the good of our sanity and the good of the world.

-unsubscribed-

 

[Boss]

Let me get this straight: Your argument doesn't pertain to objective reality, and you are making an argument while not trying to convince anyone of anything? You do realize this is a debate forum, and that a debate is an exchange of opposing arguments, and that arguments are defined as an attempt at persuading someone of something?

Go back to school. You have forgotten what words mean.

No, my argument does pertain to the reality of spiritual nature, and you can't imagine spiritual nature, therefore, conclude it is not part of objective reality. Spirituality, if nothing else, proves that it IS part of objective reality, whether you admit it or not.

This is not a debate forum, this is a message board. People can post whatever they please here, and sometimes a debate happens as a result. I welcome any debate on the argument presented in the OP, but the argument begins by establishing definitions and parameters of what is debated. You failed to meet those parameters, so you have no basis on which you can debate the argument. You have tried to debunk an argument that you don't comprehend and don't have the capacity to understand, and this is a fool's errand.

You fail to counter any of my refutations using logic, instead you simply restate your tired talking points. Apparently you don't know how to use google to look up concepts like "Begging the question" when I have tried twice now to actually explain to you what it means.

Everything you've posted has been refuted with science, nature and observation. You've proven or established NO point. You continue to cling to theories which defy nature, science, and even Darwinism.

I know what "begs the question" means, and it is generally followed in conversation by a question that is being begged. The chick came from egg, but the egg comes from chicken... this begs the question, which came first? You never completed your sentence, so I have no way as a reader, to know what question you are claiming is being begged. If you are going with English as your choice of how to communicate, you should learn to use it properly. I can't read your thoughts.

You aren't trying at all, and so why should anyone else? Then you mock others when they can't grasp your silly notions about what consitututes evidence. You simply stick to your talking points and keep on restating them, and when people get tired of this, you claim victory along with your idiot friends like SJ. There is no point in any of us being here to argue with you, since as I said, this is only about what is in your mind, not in objective reality. One last thing, I never said I was trying to convince you that this spiritual realm doesn't exist. I don't care what you believe, at all. Knock yourself out. I am trying to convince that your premises don't grant your conclusions, because of your numerous logical fallacies. Considering this is a debate forum, which involves arguments which are ALL based on logic, this is all I need to do, and nothing more. I and many others have done this, but you just turn your blinders on and forge ahead like a true idiot. You want to simply believe that your argument is sound and valid, and won't take any hints to the contrary. Take a logic course, for ***** sake.

I logically observed in the opening of the OP that some people disagree with my argument and opinion, I don't know how else I could have made that clearer. As for the argumentative points, you've not refuted those with science, nature or logic, you've presented things that contradict all of them. Largely due to the fact, you don't comprehend spiritual nature, which I warned you about in the OP... you're in a debate that is over your head, you don't have the capacity to comprehend "spiritual existence" the term is an oxymoron to you. You and others have continued to try and argue without the ability to reason spiritual nature, and you will continue to do so, because you must defend your own disbeliefs, it has become your personal replacement for spirituality.

THERE IS NO POINT TO THIS THREAD. I am going to unsubscribe from receiving any more notification from it. Good to luck to anyone that continues with this dross. Having gone back on my word of abstinence from this thread three times now because I can't let Boss get away with these crimes of logic, I still think we ought to let this thread die. It's for the good of our sanity. I'm just looking out for the world.

-unsubscribed-

GOOD! You promised numerous pages ago, that you were done here and wouldn't return. I guess a dog returns to his vomit, eh? In any event, I think this thread will likely continue on, because I refuse to allow people to lie about having refuted the OP argument. You can keep trying, do like daws and flood the thread with nonsense so no one can converse, or Hollie, and attempt to derail the conversation to a religious bashing... but I will still be here to clarify that you haven't refuted my OP argument.

 

[numan]

Oh, and his attempt at citing human belief as evidence of the supernatural, is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, or an argument from popularity, another logical fallacy which tries to argue that if enough people belief something, it is true. It is a fallacy because the amount of people who believe something has no bearing on whether that belief is true about objective reality, which is defined as that which is MIND-INDEPENDANT. So, it doesn't matter what is contained in the minds of billions of people. This has no logical connectivity to what is true about reality independent of minds.

I certainly agree with you. The number of people who are convinced of something can never prove that what they believe is true. That requires additional evidence.

Indeed, the popularity of a belief is often an indication of the falseness of the belief -- especially when the belief seems so obvious that no one ever bothers to question it seriously.

It is obvious that the Earth does not move. It is obvious that the Sun moves from east to west. It is obvious that living species do not change from generation to generation. It is obvious that light objects fall more slowly than heavy ones, and that a moving object will always slow down and stop unless it continues to be pushed. All these views have seemed obvious to most of the humans who have ever lived -- and every single one of them is wrong!

It may almost -- almost! -- be said that denying anything that is completely and utterly obvious is guaranteed to produce a fundamental advance in thought and science!!

I will agree with Boss to this extent -- human being have a strong propensity to being afflicted by religious delusion. I certainly do not regard this mental disease as being something positive, as Boss does.

Rather than deriving from a subtle perception of a fundamental reality of Existence, I see it as deriving from the instability of our large, complicated brains, which allows our easily confused minds to slip into self-reinforcing delusions, delusions which simpler organisms apparently do not suffer.

Of course, fear of the world around us, and our inability to think rationally about what we experience, are also very important, and all but universal to the incoherent minds of hominid apes.
.

 

[newpolitics]

Here Boss, since you are too stubborn or lazy to type "begging the question" into google, it appears I have to do it for you. You are begging the question with "spiritual evidence."

What is "Begging the Question?"

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse."

While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous "modern" usage. This is why we fight.

Beg The Question // Get it right.

Alias:
Circular Argument
Circulus in Probando
Petitio Principii
Vicious Circle

Etymology:

The phrase "begging the question", or "petitio principii" in Latin, refers to the "question" in a formal debate—that is, the issue being debated. In such a debate, one side may ask the other side to concede certain points in order to speed up the proceedings. To "beg" the question is to ask that the very point at issue be conceded, which is of course illegitimate.

Misrule of Thumb:

Begging the question is a fallacious form of argument.
Therefore, to beg the question is to argue fallaciously.

Form:

Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning. Were it not begging the question, the missing premise would render the argument viciously circular, and while never persuasive, arguments of the form "A therefore A" are logically valid[1][2][3] because asserting the premise while denying the self-same conclusion is a direct contradiction. In addition "A therefore A" is an extension of the Law of Identity. In general, validity only guarantees the conclusion must follow given the truth of the premises. Absent that, a valid argument proves nothing: the conclusion may or may not follow from faulty premises—although in this particular example, it's self-evident that the conclusion is false if and only if the premise is false (see logical equivalence and logical equality).
You betrayed your ignorance with respect to logic long ago when you wrote the OP, but I'm hoping this might helpful you out of the epistemic cocoon you are in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Adios.

 

[hobelim]

sure it is. It is the canine version of a fear based reaction to what they cannot understand triggered by their instincts to protect the pack from danger.. exactly like the ineffective reaction to what people fear that you call spiritual evidence..

Sacrificing virgins, witch hunts, lighting candles, sacrificing animals, building big temples with which to honor their gods,... prayer is all barking. Whenever something fearful happens, an illness, plague famine, war, drought, bad weather, whatever, people bark until its over and the danger has passed and then become convinced that barking, or sacrificing virgins, lighting candles, etc., has had an effect, so they teach their children to bark whenever a human version of a scary monster rears it scary head even though it has absolutely no effect on whatever it is they fear one way or the other..

You are completely wrong, the attribute of barking is not related in any way to human spiritual connection. Barking is 'vocalization' and is more akin to what you are doing here, than human spiritual connection. .

yeah yeah yeah, tell me all that crap after the next national day of barking.

 

[Tuatara]

Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question.

I understand english just fine but your term spuiritual evidence does not make sense as you cannot provide evidence of anything spiritual.

It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature.

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot comprehend a subject that you say Humans cannot comprehend.

Because of our inability to fully understand it, we tend to create beliefs around it, which may or may not have basis or legitimacy. Regardless, spiritual nature for sake of this conversation, has been defined universally, as the spiritual power greater than self that humans worship.

But this could also be drug induced halucinations, chemical inbalances in the brain, powers of suggestion, explanations for unexplanetory events and outright lies.

If your point is, we can't rely on spiritual evidence because people have differing perceptions on what is spiritual, then I would argue that people also have differing perspectives on physical evidence as well.

The first point is two people may claim to have seen the same spirit but when they describe this spirit the details are vastly different. As for your second point that is not true. Two people see the same object like a frog their descriptions are going to be relatively the same.

Science is comprised of theories and laws which people often have radically different perceptions on.

I would say these perceptions change when new evidence is presented. This has been what science has been all about.

As a result, sometimes theories and laws are disputed or refuted. Newton's Law of Gravity, for instance, was superseded by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Quantum Physics even challenges Einstein's theory.

As I said above, Science is always in a state of change. I don't remember anyone in the scientific community ever saying this theory is not subject to change even if new evidence is discovered. I find the opposite true where the religious dig their heels in and ignore any and every kind of evidence that contradicts their claims.

We've covered this earlier, the speculation that humans created spirituality as a placebo for knowledge is incorrect. If it were 'natural' for us to make stuff up whenever we couldn't explain things, humans would have never advanced as a species. We see no indication in nature, that anything else out there, makes up imaginary playmates to explain what isn't known or to console death. Humans strive for knowledge and understanding, and you don't get there by making up imaginary gods to explain things. So this idea is contrary to what we know about humans, and nature in general. It also contradicts Darwin, because the humans who didn't make stuff up to explain the unknown, would have overcome the weaker selection of the species who did, and it wouldn't be our most defining attribute.

When you speak of not seeing anything in nature making things up is because no other animal has the cognitive skills of humans. None of them have a complexed language that we at least can understand. Animals also do not go around making music or develop mathematical equations. They do not have these concepts. As your point about Darwin that is also wrong. In the early days of evolution of man his cognitive skills were much lower of that of today's man. Things were simplified and when man became more complexed they started asking more question about everything around them including the origin of life and what happens when we die. Humans either made stuff up which gave answers right away or they may have been ostricized by questioning these answers.

Really? It's a simple concept. You comprehend that we have to evaluate physical nature with physical evidence, we call it Science. Spiritual nature isn't physical nature, so Science isn't adequate to evaluate it.

Nothing is adequate to evaluate it. You even said yourself humans cannot comprehend this.

Now you are attempting to ridicule, because you want to diminish my viewpoint. What this says about your counter-argument is, it's weak. You rely on faith in disbelief. You've rejected spiritual nature, and in order to support your philosophy, you've chosen to ridicule and mock anything which challenges it.

I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I have not seen it before and there must be clear guidelines as to what your terms actually are.

The things you mentioned are all products of human imagination. Spirituality does manifest things created by human imagination, because humans don't fully understand spiritual nature. This is how "religion" came to be. Regardless of the validity of what humans may imagine, it has nothing to do with whether spiritual nature exists.

Everything you are talking about has been created by human imagination also. There is really no difference.

Maybe they don't? Maybe what we understand as "spiritual nature" is actually explainable through physical science and physical nature? Is there the least possibility in your mind, that humans don't yet know everything?

Humans don't know everything yet nor will they ever. Just because someone presents something to you that you cannot touch feel or hear or see, that their is no pyshial evidence for it, does not mean I have to accept that it is real.

Humans DO connect to something, they've been doing it for all their existence, and it's their most defining attribute.

Throughout history and cultures it has always been something different they are connecting to. There are humans who feel they have connected to extraterrestrials.

At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature.

There is a physical explanation. These things do not exist.

Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.

Just because we don't have the answers for everything (and I hope we never do) does not mean we have to make things up for everthing that is unexplained.

 

[Boss]

Do we really need to be so obtuse we pretend to not understand basic English? Rely on it to make an informed evaluation of the question.

I understand english just fine but your term spuiritual evidence does not make sense as you cannot provide evidence of anything spiritual.

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species.

All the "excuses" that have been presented, fail the test of nature, logic, and Darwin's own theories, and contradict everything we know about science of animal behaviors. Humans didn't create spiritual belief because they were afraid of death, no other species of life is afraid of death to the point of creating imaginary security blankets. They didn't create it to explain the unexplained, no other living thing makes stuff up to explain what they don't know, especially humans, we are the most inquisitive of all the species, so how the hell do you rationalize that we lazily created an imaginary playmate to explain what we were too dumb to find the answer to, yet we somehow managed to advance to our current state? Yes, spiritual belief did serve to explain unexplained phenomenon, but as science discovered how things work and dispelled the beliefs, the spirituality remained. It's virtually unchanged through human history, how do you explain that?

It's a connection to spiritual nature, and humans are not completely able to comprehend and understand spiritual nature.

You are contradicting yourself. You cannot comprehend a subject that you say Humans cannot comprehend.

No, I am not contradicting myself, read carefully... Humans are not completely able... doesn't say "cannot" does it? Humans connect to spiritual nature, but humans also make errors in judgement regarding their connection, they do this for various reasons, and part of it has to do with the inability to verify or confirm what someone experiences spiritually, it's all up the individual to express this in whatever terms they may, and others can either have faith in that or not. This is where religions are often flawed in their perception of God, in my opinion, and why I am not a religious person. It requires faith I don't have, while spiritual nature, I am certain exists.

But this could also be drug induced halucinations, chemical inbalances in the brain, powers of suggestion, explanations for unexplanetory events and outright lies.

Again, you are refuting history of man here. 95% of humans who have ever existed on Earth, have acknowledged at least the possibility of a spiritual nature. Are 95% of humans on drugs or chemically unstable? It is our most defining attribute as a species, I can't express that enough. This isn't imagination run wild, and as I've explained, it can't be to explain the unexplained, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. We've pretty much discovered all that ancient man would have ever needed to explain through physical science, yet still... 95% of the species is spiritually inclined. Now you will see statistics thrown out about how people are moving away from religion and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean anyone is less spiritual. Religions often come and go, this is apparent throughout human history as well. Christianity is only a couple thousand years old, for the rest of the 70k~200k years humans have been around, other religions have come and gone. So the Christian incarnation of God is relatively new.

The first point is two people may claim to have seen the same spirit but when they describe this spirit the details are vastly different. As for your second point that is not true. Two people see the same object like a frog their descriptions are going to be relatively the same.
I would say these perceptions change when new evidence is presented. This has been what science has been all about.

But you are comparing something simple with something complex. Surely you can realize that? Earlier, someone posted a graphic showing the "life cycle" of the universe, known commonly as The Big Crunch. They speculate that the universe expands, then contracts back in on itself into one massive ball of energy, which again explodes with a Big Bang, and this has apparently gone on forever, with no beginning or ending. Now they have some physical "evidence" to support the theory, but everyone doesn't evaluate evidence equally, ask the OJ Simpson prosecutors. Therefore, the theory of the Big Crunch is highly disputed, in spite of so-called evidence. This is a prime example of people having a different opinion on physical evidence, and it happens all the time... ask OJ! And this is pointed out in the OP, we have to understand that evidence is perceptual, based on the individual, it is subjective to whether you accept it as evidence. What you think may be valid evidence of something, I may not agree that it's even evidence at all. I may think you fabricated the evidence, I may think you are barking up the wrong tree, or I may just think you're loony tunes.

When you talk about Science, it's important to remember you are talking about Physical Science. It does not evaluate spiritual evidence, it can't. There is a built-in logic dichotomy, if physical science proves something that is "spiritual" it suddenly isn't spiritual anymore, it is explained by physical science and part of physical nature then. So trying to evaluate the existence of a spiritual entity is futile, it can't be done with physical science alone. This is why we have to objectively evaluate spiritual evidence... (not RELIGIOUS)... but spiritual evidence. Some people are just incapable of opening their minds to the possibility of spiritual nature, and those people have no way to rationalize or imagine spiritual evidence, spiritual existence, or anything that isn't supported by physical science at this time.

As I said above, Science is always in a state of change. I don't remember anyone in the scientific community ever saying this theory is not subject to change even if new evidence is discovered. I find the opposite true where the religious dig their heels in and ignore any and every kind of evidence that contradicts their claims.

Again, we see that your problem with God is Religion. I don't like religions either, but some have done good things for humanity and helped with civilization, so I can tolerate them as long as they don't start killing people in the name of their God. I don't notice that religious people dig their heels in and ignore physical evidence any more than some posters here have dug their heels in and ignored spiritual evidence. Seems to be about the same.

Science is indeed in a state of change, but don't try telling that to the disbelievers, they think Science confirms that God can't exist, there is no need for a Creator, and we've got the whole lifecycle of the universe nailed down, complete with origin of life and everything else... Science PROVES it, according to them. Scientific Atheism is a growing and popular trend these days, and if it keeps it up, in about 500 years, it may surpass Mormonism as a religion.

When you speak of not seeing anything in nature making things up is because no other animal has the cognitive skills of humans. None of them have a complexed language that we at least can understand. Animals also do not go around making music or develop mathematical equations. They do not have these concepts. As your point about Darwin that is also wrong. In the early days of evolution of man his cognitive skills were much lower of that of today's man. Things were simplified and when man became more complexed they started asking more question about everything around them including the origin of life and what happens when we die. Humans either made stuff up which gave answers right away or they may have been ostricized by questioning these answers.
Nothing is adequate to evaluate it. You even said yourself humans cannot comprehend this.

You have to remember we gain a LOT by being spiritually connected. This is why we have greater cognitive and creative ability, imagination and inspiration, etc. We're not the only species who has complex language or make music, have you ever listened to birds? Some creatures don't even need language, they communicate through sensory signals, almost like telepathy. Most humans can't even understand a single foreign language, much less ALL of them.

Okay, so by your reckoning, we were smart enough to invent MATH, but yet... needed an imaginary playmate to explain things we couldn't explain and didn't know? And that makes rational sense to you? It is a contradiction of human nature to make this argument. Darwin makes no conclusions on the cognitive ability of early man, just the theory we evolved from mutual ancestors of other upper primates. However, there is no Darwinist explanation for human spirituality, it certainly didn't 'evolve' into man through natural selection, nothing else in nature possesses anything remotely similar. This leads some to speculate that man created it through our great cognitive ability, but there again, how did we get sooooo lucky, when we see nothing else that even comes close? Other upper primates have the same brain capacity, some have larger brain mass, heartier cerebral cortexes, etc. Why didn't they develop this super-cognitive ability as well? Darwin says it is vital to the advancement of the species, so shouldn't the apes and chimps got to crackin' on some cognitive thoughts? Why is it that JUST humans have this ability, and where did it "evolve" from in nature?

This is why I think you all have it backwards, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator. This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else.

I am trying to understand your viewpoint. I have not seen it before and there must be clear guidelines as to what your terms actually are.
Everything you are talking about has been created by human imagination also. There is really no difference.
Humans don't know everything yet nor will they ever. Just because someone presents something to you that you cannot touch feel or hear or see, that their is no pyshial evidence for it, does not mean I have to accept that it is real.
Throughout history and cultures it has always been something different they are connecting to. There are humans who feel they have connected to extraterrestrials.

Well my viewpoint is pretty much explained in the OP, if not the first page or two of the thread. I established the guidelines for the argument, I explained in detail what I meant by each word of the question. How clearer should I have been?

We can also say that REALITY is our imaginations, if you want to wax philosophical here. Spirituality was not created out of human imagination, human imagination stems from spiritual nature and our ability to connect with it, gain inspiration, imagine and achieve.

Again, you get into a point that I made in the OP, you don't comprehend the difference between physically "real" and spiritually "real" because you don't comprehend spiritual nature. You think that something is "real" if you can verify it with your five senses. If not, it isn't "real" to you... therefore, spiritual nature can never be "real" to you. This makes you unqualified to debate the question on the existence of spiritual God. You can't rationalize the terms to have the debate.

You mentioned "extraterrestrials" here, so I will take this opportunity to say... can you prove those who claim to have had such an experience are imagining it or it didn't happen? There is some pretty incredible stuff that has happened, and been reported, by very reputable people, which science and what we know, can't explain.... AT ALL! ...What's up with that?

Could it be... there is some connection with ETs and God? A fellow spiritualist friend of mine, recently told me he believed that humans were "visited" way back in cave man times, and the advanced life forms were not able to stay long enough to really 'teach' anything, but gave them some basics which inspired humans to 'rise from the muck' so-to-speak. He said, it explains why we pray to the God in the sky, and have this intrinsic connection to spirituality, and may also explain UFOs as well.... interesting cat, that guy was. But who's to say he isn't right? I don't profess to know for sure, but I do know that I personally gain tremendously as a human, by having a healthy spiritual connection.

At this time, there is no physical explanation for this, so we call it spiritual nature.

There is a physical explanation. These things do not exist.

Again... in the OP, you will find the point that without the ability to comprehend spiritual nature, you are unable to grasp "exist" in any other context besides physical, the term "spiritual existence" is an oxymoron. And oh by the way, things can indeed "exist" that are "real," which we've yet to discover.

Once was a time, humans believed "rain" was a product of spiritual nature, it happened because the gods were pleased or whatever.... then science comes along and explains HOW rain happens, so this suddenly isn't a spiritual phenomenon anymore, it becomes physically explainable and a physical phenomenon. Now, we have explained HOW the evaporation process works, what happens in clouds, how density of moisture accumulates and becomes to heavy to be suspended, then falls back to the surface as rain... but have we explained WHY the elements behaved as they did? No, we determined because we could explain HOW it happened, that it didn't matter WHY. Such is the case for much of science, as it has explained away things that were previously considered spiritual nature.

Just because we don't have the answers for everything (and I hope we never do) does not mean we have to make things up for everthing that is unexplained.

I agree... so we shouldn't make up this bullshit about spirituality not being natural, not being our most defining attribute, not being the thing that compels mankind to be all he can be.... We should be honest and admit that humans do spiritually connect, and not always with great results, but our spiritual connection is very much "real" in a spiritual sense, and always has been. We shouldn't make up stories about humans creating spirituality to cope with death, when there is no evidence in nature to support such an idea, and the only reason we're doing it is because we don't like religious believers. We shouldn't try to claim that humans invented spirituality to explain the unexplained, as we rely on math, physics, science, philosophy...all of which humans created to explain the unexplained, instead of an imaginary playmate. And we certainly shouldn't try to claim that humans happened to hit the Evolution Lottery which gave us super-cognitive ability over everything else. Don't make things up for what you can't explain, just admit that Science hasn't discovered physical proof of a spiritual entity, and let that be the end of it... I'm fine with that, I'll agree.

 

[hobelim]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .

You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?

 

[BreezeWood]

This is why I think you all have it backwards, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator. This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else.

This is why I think you all have it backwards ... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator.


how sad, did you read beyond that passage in the J / C Bible ?

atmospheric testing of the A-Bomb is testament of your conviction -

Boss:

I did make the point of humans being intrinsically spiritual throughout their history, and this is certainly evidenced by the architecture.

I never claimed spiritual nature was exclusionary to humans, only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality. Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique. This is important to note because it can't be explained by natural selection. This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man. We don't see evidence of other upper primates trying to mimic the behavior, it's non-existent outside of humans. The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.

... only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality - Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique - it can't be explained by natural selection - This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man - it's non-existent outside of humans - The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.


The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.


it seems just as backwards to keep insisting only man is spiritual, with a knowledge greater than self excluding all other life forms and implying it would be less appealing if it were derived through Natural Selection, rather an ordination particular to yourself - when however it evolved should be irrelevant to what it is you are connecting to, your proof of god ... or why only mankind is what the Spiritual Entity is concerned for.


yes, you certainly must have read further - the Forbidden Book.

 

[Boss]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .

You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?

Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.

 

[Boss]

This is why I think you all have it backwards, humans were 'blessed and cursed' with the ability of spiritual connection, and through this connection, were given a bit of a head-start on everything else in nature... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator. This opens the knowledge base tremendously for man, and explains our ability to advance as a species to so much greater degree than anything else.

This is why I think you all have it backwards ... we're the stewards. Put in charge of Physical Nature by our Creator.


how sad, did you read beyond that passage in the J / C Bible ?

atmospheric testing of the A-Bomb is testament of your conviction -

Boss:

I did make the point of humans being intrinsically spiritual throughout their history, and this is certainly evidenced by the architecture.

I never claimed spiritual nature was exclusionary to humans, only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality. Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique. This is important to note because it can't be explained by natural selection. This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man. We don't see evidence of other upper primates trying to mimic the behavior, it's non-existent outside of humans. The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.

... only the attribute of spiritual worship, or spirituality - Our ability to recognize spiritual connection is what is unique - it can't be explained by natural selection - This attribute didn't 'evolve' into man - it's non-existent outside of humans - The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.


The misconception is that man created spirituality, that is where the Atheists and disbelievers have it backwards.


it seems just as backwards to keep insisting only man is spiritual, with a knowledge greater than self excluding all other life forms and implying it would be less appealing if it were derived through Natural Selection, rather an ordination particular to yourself - when however it evolved should be irrelevant to what it is you are connecting to, your proof of god ... or why only mankind is what the Spiritual Entity is concerned for.


yes, you certainly must have read further - the Forbidden Book.

Oh yeah, I've read the Bible. Interesting book, I highly recommend it. There are some good lessons in there for life, if nothing else. I routinely like to paraphrase from the Bible when speaking with anti-Christians who want to argue spiritual nature, because it gets under their skin so much. It's the equivalent of them mocking me and ridiculing me, except that doesn't get under my skin like they believe it does.

Your point is absolutely valid though, I have no way of knowing if other living things experience spiritual connection, or understand it as such. It's entirely possible. However, I didn't say that humans are the only thing spiritual entity is concerned for. I don't think God has "concerns" because that is a human trait. Surely spiritual nature touches every aspect of physical nature which it created.

 

[Tuatara]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively.

Sorry but there is zero evidence. Please provide this evidence.

We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species.

Religious people ignore science and facts. They hold on to their religion because someone they love and trusr (parents) told them it was true. For most they didn't experience any spiritual existence. Not everyone who is religious has claimed to seen god or talked to god or any kind of spiritual experience.

All the "excuses" that have been presented, fail the test of nature, logic, and Darwin's own theories, and contradict everything we know about science of animal behaviors. Humans didn't create spiritual belief because they were afraid of death, no other species of life is afraid of death to the point of creating imaginary security blankets.

Other spieces of animals do not have the concept to create imaginery beings. Even today many religious people show their acceptance of a god because they can't deal with their own mortality.

They didn't create it to explain the unexplained,

Yes they do. You even provided detail when people used gods to explain why the rain fell and thunder and lightning.

no other living thing makes stuff up to explain what they don't know,

Again they do not have the cognitive concept, a point you keep ignoring.

especially humans, we are the most inquisitive of all the species, so how the hell do you rationalize that we lazily created an imaginary playmate to explain what we were too dumb to find the answer to, yet we somehow managed to advance to our current state?

As I said once something is instilled in you at a very young age over and over again it's very hard to break your mind free from these constraints. Just ask atheists who were brought up religiously. For some it took them quite awhile to reject god or religion. They will even admit they were not using reason or even questiong these beliefs.

Yes, spiritual belief did serve to explain unexplained phenomenon, but as science discovered how things work and dispelled the beliefs, the spirituality remained. It's virtually unchanged through human history, how do you explain that?

But it has changed. No longer do people believe in Ra or Thor or Zeus. These gods were just as real to those who believed them just as Yahweh is real to other today.. New gods replace the old ones. New religions were forced on new generations. Also by your argument all these other gods are just as real as the christian/judaism god.

No, I am not contradicting myself, read carefully... Humans are not completely able... doesn't say "cannot" does it? Humans connect to spiritual nature, but humans also make errors in judgement regarding their connection, they do this for various reasons, and part of it has to do with the inability to verify or confirm what someone experiences spiritually, it's all up the individual to express this in whatever terms they may, and others can either have faith in that or not.

Yes and a way for some to have faith in these spiritual connections is to have evidence where there is zero. That is what faith means. To believe in something without evidence of it's existence.

This is where religions are often flawed in their perception of God, in my opinion, and why I am not a religious person. It requires faith I don't have, while spiritual nature, I am certain exists.

I think people want the spiritual world to exist so much and they find it difficult to come to terms with the alternative.

Again, you are refuting history of man here. 95% of humans who have ever existed on Earth, have acknowledged at least the possibility of a spiritual nature. Are 95% of humans on drugs or chemically unstable? It is our most defining attribute as a species, I can't express that enough. This isn't imagination run wild, and as I've explained, it can't be to explain the unexplained, that makes no logical sense whatsoever. We've pretty much discovered all that ancient man would have ever needed to explain through physical science, yet still... 95% of the species is spiritually inclined.

95% have not experienced this. They only blindy believe because generations have told them it was the truth. Don't also forget that many people were harshly punished for not holding these beliefs.

Now you will see statistics thrown out about how people are moving away from religion and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean anyone is less spiritual.

But even religious people can show zero signs of spirituality. Met a girl who says she belives in god because she does not want to go to hell. When asked other questions she said she gave them no thought before. Her belief is not because of spirituality. It's because of fear. Fear of eternal damnation.

Religions often come and go, this is apparent throughout human history as well. Christianity is only a couple thousand years old, for the rest of the 70k~200k years humans have been around, other religions have come and gone. So the Christian incarnation of God is relatively new.

Yes. We agree on this.

But you are comparing something simple with something complex. Surely you can realize that? Earlier, someone posted a graphic showing the "life cycle" of the universe, known commonly as The Big Crunch. They speculate that the universe expands, then contracts back in on itself into one massive ball of energy, which again explodes with a Big Bang, and this has apparently gone on forever, with no beginning or ending. Now they have some physical "evidence" to support the theory, but everyone doesn't evaluate evidence equally, ask the OJ Simpson prosecutors. Therefore, the theory of the Big Crunch is highly disputed, in spite of so-called evidence.

Yes and new evidence may support or contradict this theory. The big crunch theory is relatively new and the evidence is minimal at best. As for the J trial I think the interpretation of the law was argued which resulted in differences of opinion. Evidence can also be skewed or misrepresented. Just ask Colin Powell.

This is a prime example of people having a different opinion on physical evidence, and it happens all the time... ask OJ! And this is pointed out in the OP, we have to understand that evidence is perceptual, based on the individual, it is subjective to whether you accept it as evidence. What you think may be valid evidence of something, I may not agree that it's even evidence at all. I may think you fabricated the evidence, I may think you are barking up the wrong tree, or I may just think you're loony tunes.

Exactly but some evidence is overwhelming and the tons more evidence comes along and supports the claim.

I will finish the rest later. Time constraints

 

[JimBowie1958]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .

You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?

Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.

You're not going to get anywhere with Hobelium, Hollie or daws as they are closed minded fools and narcissistic morons.

 

[hobelim]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively. We can even use physical science to confirm that something is going on, humans are definitely making connection to something, they've been doing it for all of human existence in some form. If there weren't anything there, or it was a product of imagination, the attribute would have diminished over time, especially with the advent of science, and it hasn't....still our most defining attribute as a species. .

You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?

Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.

Yes, they are sick and not by accident.

People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.

Tying to reinforce the delusions of people with unrestrained imaginations by validating every irrational violent and bizarre thing people have ever done in the past 70,000 years by calling it evidence of spiritual reality, only serves to keep them sick or make them sicker.

What a guy!

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are a very stupid man.

There you go again with the tons of spiritual evidence proving spiritual existence which makes no sense to anyone who does not comprehend spiritual nature.

pure unrefined bullshit.

However convincing your specious claim of providing evidence of "spirituality" indistinguishable from superstition or mental illness may be to those whose only aim in life is being your personal felcher no one with an intelligence above that of a monkey is ever going to buy your beat bag of fake religion.

why not just accept reality mr rational?

Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.

Yes, they are sick and not by accident.

People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.

Tying to reinforce the delusions of people with unrestrained imaginations by validating every irrational violent and bizarre thing people have ever done in the past 70,000 years by calling it evidence of spiritual reality, only serves to keep them sick or make them sicker.

What a guy!

lol, we are sick because we dare to disagree with secularist dogma, in their view anyway.

That's why Stalin and the communists around the world have put dissenters into psycho wards to isolate them.

**** you, you fascist piece of shyte.

 

[hobelim]

Spiritual reality or physical reality? Because, I accept BOTH... only one of us two is rejecting a reality. Mentally ill? So now the 95% of humans who spiritually connect, are mentally ill people? Are you going to stick with that argument, or abandon it for something even sillier when I destroy it? Seems to be the M.O. around here.

Yes, they are sick and not by accident.

People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.

Tying to reinforce the delusions of people with unrestrained imaginations by validating every irrational violent and bizarre thing people have ever done in the past 70,000 years by calling it evidence of spiritual reality, only serves to keep them sick or make them sicker.

What a guy!

lol, we are sick because we dare to disagree with secularist dogma, in their view anyway..

No you are sick because you are irrational.

You claim to believe in a God that can do anything yet waste your life making irrational claims and preposterous declarations that contradict the reality God has made, you know, the one that actually exists.


You profess to be moral and ethical and try to assert moral authority over anyone who rejects your superstitious delusions yet you demonstrably have absolutely no idea about the meaning of the words or subjects about which you are so hypocritically dogmatic.


You are as mentally ill as anyone who ever sacrificed a virgin to insure a good crop, but you have no excuse.

Go **** yourself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, they are sick and not by accident.

People like you who fill the minds of the gullible with superstitious and irrational doubletalk make mental health impossible for them.

Tying to reinforce the delusions of people with unrestrained imaginations by validating every irrational violent and bizarre thing people have ever done in the past 70,000 years by calling it evidence of spiritual reality, only serves to keep them sick or make them sicker.

What a guy!

lol, we are sick because we dare to disagree with secularist dogma, in their view anyway..

No you are sick because you are irrational.

lol, you secularists used to say that irrationality was due to ignorance, but now its a mental illness? Guess that was so last century, or previously last century to this one, roflmao

You only say I am irrational because I disagree with you. If it were true that I were irrational and you rational, yo wouldn't really have to say it explicitly, you could demonstrate it through a discussion.

But you fucktards are too lazy and/or insecure to actually discuss anything any more, so you get your high-five tag teams to drown people out, lie about what has been said, and just do monkey-poop-throwing nonsense to make people drop the discussion and walk away.

People like you drive people away from your point of view, and what is really hilarious is that you just don't get it. But then, they must be sick too, right? lolol

You claim to believe in a God that can do anything yet waste your life making irrational claims and preposterous declarations that contradict the reality God has made, you know, the one that actually exists.

Well, since you don't even know what most Christians believe (hint, we don't believe that God can do ANYTHING/EVERYTHING), you just once again demonstrated that you don't know what the **** you are talking about, cheese-for-brains.

You profess to be moral and ethical and try to assert moral authority over anyone who rejects your superstitious delusions yet you demonstrably have absolutely no idea about the meaning of the words or subjects about which you are so hypocritically dogmatic.

This is truly funny. You again show you don't know what you are talking about. Christians know that they are sinners and NOT morally superior to anyone. We are JUSTIFIED THROUGH FAITH, we are not superior or deserving of any rewards from God and we know it. We try to live lives pleasing to God because we love Him, not because we fear Him.

But your demonstrated ignorance and idiocy just runs off you like water off a duck.

You are as mentally ill as anyone who ever sacrificed a virgin to insure a good crop, but you have no excuse.

Um, like I have done anything like that? roflmao.

Go **** yourself.

Lol, well thank you for the laughs.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It doesn't make sense to you because you can't comprehend spiritual nature. There is tons and tons of spiritual evidence to prove spiritual existence definitively.

Sorry but there is zero evidence. Please provide this evidence.

No Boss is right. There is spiritual evidence. You reject it because it is not scientific or fails to fit your prejudiced idea of what is legitimate evidence and what is not.

I have experienced spiritual things that have removed any trace of doubt in my mind that God exists and that He intervenes in this universe. I wont bother to tell any of it to you as it is unbelievable unless you experience it for yourself.

But the evidence is there; what isn't there is your willingness to think you might be wrong about all of it.