Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

Human history. DONE!

Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
Give me data, baby!
You are making claims.
You bear the burden of proof.

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.

You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?

 

[MaryL]

If religion is about anything, it's forgiveness. God made the universe, made us what we are, preordained fate. Yes? then, fate is god's will, and we are like flies trapped in amber, we are what we are. So why bother with faith at all? It's almost comical. But this is a serious subject, deserves a level of reverence. Even atheists are god’s children.

 

[daws101]

No, I gave you the evidence and you just rejected it. It's not any different than you giving me evidence to support a theory of gravity and me rejecting it. Doesn't change a thing. Evidence is subject to what you are willing to accept as such. I can't change that, it's just how things are. If you reject my evidence, that's your prerogative, it doesn't negate or change the validity of the evidence in any way.

This "mass delusional ignorance" theory you have is not supportable with science. If it were true, humans would have abandoned the attribute long ago. Instead, the attribute of human spirituality has persevered and thrived, through centuries of oppression, millions of martyrs, scores of executions and persecutions clearly not conducive with survival of the species. so your theory isn't even supportable by Darwinian natural selection.

It is the opinion of an ignorant moron who is incapable of thinking beyond your own parameters of understanding. You are not much different than the monkey in the zoo, existing for our entertainment in your antics and amusement of simple curiosity, but unable to comprehend the world outside your environment.

Dark energy and black holes... Have physical measurable effects that we can see. Your spiritual energy doesn't. Comparing the two is nonsense. ****, are you ever a dumb noob.

Sorry but you're wrong. We can see the physically measurable effects of human spirituality.

really? sure those effects are not from a physical source...

 

[daws101]

Every great mind? You don't say.

You're right, I didn't say! I said NEARLY every great mind, didn't I? Yes, I did. So we see that you begin your tirade with a completely dishonest assertion of what was said. Is this because you lack the ability to comprehend language? Or are you just flat out dishonest about the things you do comprehend?



Nothing hyperbolic about it, I stated the truth. Then you distorted it.



Not my argument at all. There is nothing "supernatural" about human spirituality, it is as clearly a part of nature as the nose on your face. It has been present in man since the beginning. The spiritual evidence is not anecdotal, it is overwhelming, you just choose to reject it.

Now, to address your inane point about "explanation" ...spiritual belief doesn't explain anything. This is why man invented science, to explain things. The person who believes spirituality explains anything is no more rational than the person who thinks science explains everything.



I'll defer to my previous comments... I type in coherent sentences using plain English and mostly common terminology the average person can comprehend. There is not a rational reason for you to interject things into what I've said that were not said. If that was what I wanted to say, believe me, I would have said it. If that had been my argument, I would have stated it as such. I did not.



I've made no argument that most people are Christians. I've not argued that numbers "prove" anything. I merely offered evidence, you can choose to accept it or not accept it. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a Christian. I don't know how else to type that to make this point, is there some other way that I can get that point inside your closed mind? I am not arguing on behalf of Christianity or ANY religion for that matter. Human spirituality FAR predates ANY religious doctrine.

If you have to believe it before you can prove it, that isn't proof. It's investment.
You are clearly deeply invested.

Name any goddamn thing you want to that you don't have to believe in order to accept it as proof? You are simply making an ignorant point that doesn't even comport with logic. EVERYTHING you believe as "proof" you have to first believe. It's not possible to believe anything is proof, yet not believe it. This is probably the most absurd and ridiculous comment I've read in my time on this forum. And that's saying something.

Wow, testy!
While I freely admit that I made an assumption about the Christian bent of your position, you are making the case for the belief in God, or god, and that is being supported by the vast numbers of people that believe it, which is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. The volume of it doesn't change that. It is still anecdotal. I haven't rejected anything. You haven't provided any. Wow me.
"Nearly every great mind". My apology. Still hyperbole. Doesn't change an iota of what I said.
As far as the spiritual "explaining" things, this is what you are saying. You list all the unexplained things and you attribute them to people's belief in god, because they believe it to be so.
Many people believe things because they have been proven to them. Your argument suggests that proof is available only after you invest in the belief. You think belief comes first. I think the proof does. I think that "believing precedes proof" is delusional, so there you go.
Swear at me some more!
That was exciting!

he throws those tantrums when he's getting his ass handed to him....

 

[Boss]

Where are the citations I asked for? You do know what those are, right?
Give me data, baby!
You are making claims.
You bear the burden of proof.

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.

You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Oh... maybe you are talking about citations from physical science? Well, here's the problem with that... physical science deals with physical nature and spiritual nature (by definition) is not physical nature. So it's like asking to cite every instance where you've turned on the faucet and the H2O has flowed out in the form of ice cubes. This wouldn't prove there is no such thing as ice cubes. It also wouldn't prove that H2O can't take the form as a solid and can only exist as a liquid. Those might be your assumptions based on lack of citation, but it doesn't make anything a fact except your ignorance.

You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!

 

[GISMYS]

You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!

If you do not believe God's word then you have no way to know anything about God other than He is GOD,FOR GOD is reveiled to mankind through his holy inspired(God breathed) WOED!

 

[Boss]

You're right. I could walk over to the freezer and prove to you there are ice cubes.
What'cha got?

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist.

Like you do with spirituality and spiritual nature.

That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.

Like it does you with regard to spirituality and spiritual nature. The overwhelming majority of humans are spiritual... always have been, always will be.

The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.

But it's not a whim. It's undeniable and real. You can confirm, test and validate, but you first have to believe it exists. Until you do, you can't.

You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence.

Not pounding the table, not outraged, and I know... you reject the evidence as anecdotal.

That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!

No one is always right all the time about anything. Science has certainly not always been right. People have had wildly different ideas of what science revealed to them. They weren't all right. So I guess we can't depend on it as confirmation of any greater truth?

 

[MaryL]

I belong to the church of Bruce’s Yams. God is a sweet potato. He forgives the no-believers, ye of little yams!

 

[mamooth]

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.

Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist. That would be your choice, and it would marginalize you with even remotely sane people.
The problem with what you want to absurdly term as "evidence" is it is whatever anyone wants to say it is. It has no way of confirming or testing or validating it as anything other than whim.
You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence. That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!

If you do not believe God's word then you have no way to know anything about God other than He is GOD,FOR GOD is reveiled to mankind through his holy inspired(God breathed) WOED!

Well, you're at odds with the Boss man. He isn't a Christian, don't you know.
God is "reveiled"(sic)? Did you mean "revealed" or "reviled"? Very different ideas.
Actually, most mainstream seminaries in this country don't relate to scripture in the sycophantic way that you do. You have created an idol out of the "WOED"(sic) as have many fundamentalists, but it is perfectly possibly to love god and have a more discerning relationship with scripture.

 

[GISMYS]

MOCKERS AND SCOFFERS BEWARNED!! Only total fools dare God to judge them. and you?

 

[MaryL]

Does God hates animals too? Or they don't matter. When you chow down on a big fat burger, think of the suffering the animals had to go through, just like Jesus did on the cross. Maybe it won't taste as good. Yum yum. Even the flesh of Christ is a wafer made from gluteus crap. Transubstantion my sweet bippy. Prove it.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not if I rejected your evidence and refused to accept anything that didn't come from the faucet.

True that.
You could be as disconnected as your rant and refuse to accept the undeniable evidence I would hand you dripping into your hand and pretend it didn't exist.

Like you do with spirituality and spiritual nature.



Like it does you with regard to spirituality and spiritual nature. The overwhelming majority of humans are spiritual... always have been, always will be.



But it's not a whim. It's undeniable and real. You can confirm, test and validate, but you first have to believe it exists. Until you do, you can't.

You can be demonstrative or outraged and pound the table if you like, but I haven't seen anything that would qualify as evidence.

Not pounding the table, not outraged, and I know... you reject the evidence as anecdotal.

That would require a standard to be judged by. People with wildly different ideas of what their spirituality has revealed to them can not all be right, and that is good evidence that the kind of testimony you want to submit can simply not be depended on as confirmation of any greater truth.
But if it comforts your incurious mind, rock on, brother!

No one is always right all the time about anything. Science has certainly not always been right. People have had wildly different ideas of what science revealed to them. They weren't all right. So I guess we can't depend on it as confirmation of any greater truth?

What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.

 

[Boss]

What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.

Lots more words and still no example of something you accept as proof of something you don't believe in. Why can't you give me an example? All I asked for is one. Surely you can come up with something, since that was your argument?

Spiritual faith is tested all the time. Haven't you heard someone say "my faith was tested?" Those who believe in spiritual nature have all the evidence they need. You can't acknowledge the evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. No amount of evidence is ever going to suffice because you reject it. Doesn't matter if you are among about 14% of the human race that doesn't believe in spiritual nature, that never does phase you.

You totally missed my example with the ice. The faucet represents science. Ice represents God. The water which normally flows from a faucet is physical nature. You turn on the faucet and ice doesn't come out, so you conclude that ice must not exist or is not real. I can show you ice from the freezer, but you reject anything that doesn't come from the faucet. The freezer and what comes from it are "anecdotal" in your mind. I can never prove ice exists to you because ice is never going to come out of the faucet, it can't... if it did, it would no longer be ice. I can put the ice in your hand, everyone who believes in the ice can see me do that, and you just smile and say, "that's nice, but it didn't come from the faucet, so I don't believe it is real!" The rest of us just shake our heads. You don't get it, just like you didn't get this analogy.

I don't just "say" most people are spiritual, it's a known fact. 86% of us worship some spiritual power greater than self and do so regularly. Humans would not do this if there was no benefit to them, if it were a meaningless practice. This has been going on for all of man's existence. Through century after century of jealous kings and tyrants trying to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man. It can't be done. We refuse to abandon our spiritual connection.

Science NEVER concludes something as fact. Everything in science is theory. There is an important reason for this. Science is the human practice of investigation. Investigation of possibilities. Once something has been concluded as fact, there is no more science to be done, no other possibility exists, science is through... FAITH begins. You can't practice science on a fact, there is nothing to do. Science has to be able to investigate, ask questions, hypothesis and theorize. It cannot do that with something that has been established as a fact. Even the most clearly indisputable aspects of scientific discovery which we can all universally agree on, remains theory in principle. Even things science establishes as laws.

 

[thebrucebeat]

What would you hand me that would be undeniable for anyone to see?
The problem you have is that things in evidence (I mean actual evidence) don't have to be believed in before they can be validated. Just like your example, when I took the ice cube out of the freezer, you could deny it all you like, but anyone watching us would know you were certifiably insane. The same would not be true of people standing around watching you tell us about the undetectable spiritual experience you swear you are having. One is not dependent on someone already being on your "team". Real evidence is its own team.
Science does morph and change, because it retains the humility required to learn. It doesn't confirm any greater truth than what it confirms in fact, not speculation. Those are called "hypotheses" and remain so until the evidence to solidify them takes them to the next realm.
Why do people of different spiritual traditions have throw downs over spiritual revelations if they can be confirmed, tested and validated?
Because they can't, because those terms indicate that data can be shared with anyone and be accepted, not the chosen few that simply "believe".
Perhaps it is best to start with a definition of your terms. You say most people are spiritual. Define how you are using the term.
Who knows? You might have such a gelatinous definition that I'll find it hard to disagree.

Lots more words and still no example of something you accept as proof of something you don't believe in. Why can't you give me an example? All I asked for is one. Surely you can come up with something, since that was your argument?

Spiritual faith is tested all the time. Haven't you heard someone say "my faith was tested?" Those who believe in spiritual nature have all the evidence they need. You can't acknowledge the evidence because you don't believe in spiritual nature. No amount of evidence is ever going to suffice because you reject it. Doesn't matter if you are among about 14% of the human race that doesn't believe in spiritual nature, that never does phase you.

You totally missed my example with the ice. The faucet represents science. Ice represents God. The water which normally flows from a faucet is physical nature. You turn on the faucet and ice doesn't come out, so you conclude that ice must not exist or is not real. I can show you ice from the freezer, but you reject anything that doesn't come from the faucet. The freezer and what comes from it are "anecdotal" in your mind. I can never prove ice exists to you because ice is never going to come out of the faucet, it can't... if it did, it would no longer be ice. I can put the ice in your hand, everyone who believes in the ice can see me do that, and you just smile and say, "that's nice, but it didn't come from the faucet, so I don't believe it is real!" The rest of us just shake our heads. You don't get it, just like you didn't get this analogy.

I don't just "say" most people are spiritual, it's a known fact. 86% of us worship some spiritual power greater than self and do so regularly. Humans would not do this if there was no benefit to them, if it were a meaningless practice. This has been going on for all of man's existence. Through century after century of jealous kings and tyrants trying to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man. It can't be done. We refuse to abandon our spiritual connection.

Science NEVER concludes something as fact. Everything in science is theory. There is an important reason for this. Science is the human practice of investigation. Investigation of possibilities. Once something has been concluded as fact, there is no more science to be done, no other possibility exists, science is through... FAITH begins. You can't practice science on a fact, there is nothing to do. Science has to be able to investigate, ask questions, hypothesis and theorize. It cannot do that with something that has been established as a fact. Even the most clearly indisputable aspects of scientific discovery which we can all universally agree on, remains theory in principle. Even things science establishes as laws.

So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.

 

[Boss]

So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.

It's not MY definition, it's what spirituality IS.

Leads you to conclude? How can something lead you to conclude if you don't believe it exists to begin with? You've already concluded, haven't you? Or is this like the not believing in things you have proof for, but don't seem to be able to give an example of?

And Dickens? Really? You are going to offer up a supposed quote from the man who wrote A Christmas Carol-- the classic story of a hardened heart who was visited at Christmas by spiritual entities which changed his heart? I got to hand it to God-haters, they do have some moxy, don't they? You do realize this isn't actually a quote from Dickens, but rather a quote from Ebenezer Scrooge?

 

[Boss]

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.

Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.

Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago.

Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve?

Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.

 

[MrMax]

What? You want me to go back to the beginning of humanity and present every instance where a human has cited the power of spiritual nature's influence in their lives? I hardly think this forum could withstand the bandwidth requirement.

Humans have cited a lot of things that aren't true. And your attempted "proof by warm fuzzy feeling" is rather pathetic. As is the fact that everyone's warm fuzzy feelings all contradict everyone else's warm fuzzy feelings. You've just shown people get warm fuzzy feelings. That's not even close to being evidence for God.

Lots of things give me a warm fuzzy feeling. When I was less mature, I attributed such things to God. Then I grew up. Having lived it, I have direct evidence that your spirituality is self-delusion. And by your standards, I don't need to back it up, I just need to state that my feelings are a fact, and that settles the issue completely for all of humanity.

Sorry, but the testimonies are far more than "warm fuzzy feelings" and if that were all there was to spirituality, domestication of cats would have done it in centuries ago.

Try to let this soak into your granite-like cranium... nothing anyone here is ever going to show you is going to convince you of spiritual nature. You refuse to accept that it exists. Expecting me to "prove" God to you when you don't believe in spiritual nature, is kind of a waste of time. Anything I say is going to immediately be met with rejection because you've decided you don't believe and no one is going to make you believe. So what is the point of me continuing to show you what you refuse to accept, and what is the point in you continuing to demand proof or evidence of something you choose to disbelieve?

Now your story about when you were "less mature" is charming, but I don't believe you've ever had a personal relationship with God. If you had, you couldn't be arguing that God doesn't exist. So you either know that God does exist, or you never had a personal relationship with Him.... he couldn't have stopped existing when you decided to abandon Him. Of course, this makes perfect sense if you're a lying God-hater hiding behind Atheism because you're too much of a coward to admit you believe in God but hate Him.

You've never proven ANYTHING about spiritual nature. I'm not saying that it might not exist, or that there might not be a single or more creators, universes... (I'm agnostic), but you sure haven't proven squat. Then you ask us for hard, scientific evidence to disprove what you have not yet proven. Kinda comical, but it's fun.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So your definition of spiritual is people worshipping something greater than self. They do it for their self-benefit. It could be anything, and has been all kinds of things through the centuries of self-flagellations, none of which have needed to remotely resemble each other, but all having some validity in spite of their lack of kinship with each other.
This leads me to conclude that somewhere along the line, someone's spirituality was, as Dickens suggested, an un digested bit of beef.

It's not MY definition, it's what spirituality IS.

Leads you to conclude? How can something lead you to conclude if you don't believe it exists to begin with? You've already concluded, haven't you? Or is this like the not believing in things you have proof for, but don't seem to be able to give an example of?

And Dickens? Really? You are going to offer up a supposed quote from the man who wrote A Christmas Carol-- the classic story of a hardened heart who was visited at Christmas by spiritual entities which changed his heart? I got to hand it to God-haters, they do have some moxy, don't they? You do realize this isn't actually a quote from Dickens, but rather a quote from Ebenezer Scrooge?

Do you think Scrooge wrote that?
That explains much about your posts.
LOL!
Swear at me some more. That always makes for compelling argument.
By the way, I'm not an atheist, so the god-hater tripe lands on deaf ears.
I made a conclusion that spirituality, in and of itself, leads to no credible conclusions because it has led to so many incompatible ones.
How do you reconcile that?