Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All you said was you don't know why I think Boss and I are on the same side, and that I hate atheists. You call that debating?Right on. That's what I thought: you had no response. Just the usual sideline cheer leading for your team because you can't actually debate for yourself.
If you want to debate, make a valid point. So far, all you've done is attack, insult, and lie about what the other person said.
However, we have already determined that not all "atheists" reject the possibility of a "spiritual" existence. I am a prime example of someone who falls in this category, and I'll bet that when it comes right down to it, if people are completely honest, this is true with virtually everyone in this thread.
Answer me this; Are you willing to say that you do not believe it is possible for another realm of existence to be present in the universe, except the one you understand as the physical one? Now.... don't IGNORE the question, answer it honestly.
IF you believe it possible another realm could exist, you are like most human beings. IF you do not believe it is possible, you are among the 5% who profess a belief in nothing, a Nihilist. The problem with believing it is impossible that spiritual nature exists, is you are actually practicing a FAITH-BASED BELIEF, and not practicing scientific evaluation. However... the "problem" with accepting the possibility of spiritual existence, means you have to objectively accept spiritual evidence, which is overwhelming.
Why do you preposterously ASSUME that if another realm exists that it MUST be "spiritual" in nature? Other realms could just as easily be physical but comprised entirely of dark matter and dark energy. Once again your innate religiosity exposes the absurdity of your erroneous presumptions.
You are absolutely correct, there could be a realm which is not spiritual OR physical. I never meant to imply (because I didn't state) that another realm MUST be spiritual. In context of the current conversation, I presumed we were defining "spiritual" to be that which is not "physical," but I certainly want to clarify this, so that everyone understands.
So, are you now saying that you believe it is possible another realm does exist, which we can't comprehend from our physical realm? Just want to make sure you've answered my question.
Boss I haven't mastered the piece by piece quote function so I will highlight your responses to me in bold
Boss you said:
What you are saying is, spirituality doesn't exist, it's just ingrained into society as a matter of psychological conditioning. This makes absolutely NO logical sense. You've not pointed out a flaw, you've reaffirmed that man could not have progressed without spirituality, which was ingrained into society and psychologically conditioned. Regardless of the perspective of a given culture, the commonality is spiritual belief. This attribute has been present in humans since humans first existed, and remains our most defining characteristic as a species.
My response:
No. I'm saying there is no proof of spirituality
and that cultures that practice "spiritual customs" do so based on whatever understanding of the natural world they experience. I, therefore, also added that the continuation of so-called spiritual customs and their survival is due to the fact that certain rituals and other religious customs have become apart of that particular culture in that given region of the world. As far as spirituality contributing to the progression of man I just don't see how you've come up with the idea of progression through spirituality. If anything spiritualuity (whatever that is) has become apart of society because its a different way humans view the world.
It means different things to different people, but basically, it is the belief in some supernatural power beyond our own physical realm of existence or comprehension. Our imaginations have forged this profound connection we can't deny, into various "religions" which attempt to define god in theological parameters. I am not here to argue theology, only the existence of spirituality and a spiritual power greater than self.
If spirituality means different things to different people then there is (according to how you've stated in your first sentence) no real universal definition of what spirituality is. It appears that your subsequent comments thereafter was merely defining what "religious spirituality" is more than a core definition.
Answered already. In this particular argument, "god" is a metaphoric representation of what humans have spiritually acknowledged for all their existence. It does not have to be defined specifically, I never claimed I could prove the existence of any particular incarnation of god. Also, if you read the OP, it states this very clearly in the first two paragraphs, that we have to clearly define the words used in the question, and what they mean.
I would highly doubt a Muslim would treat "God" as an idea, than an actual deity. I would also have to disagree with your assertion that something doesn't have to be specifically defined. I believe all ideas, thoughts, feelings, even religious beliefs are compartmentalized in their respective categories because humans need to make distinctions. It is virtually impossible for any human to not define something whatever it is because the human language makes it impossible to do so.
Again, things do not have to be specifically defined to determine existence. I see a person in the courtyard... it is confirmed this person exists without me determining if it's a man or woman, what religion they are, what color eyes and hair they have, etc. Please tell me this isn't over your head?
Naturally, we tend to see objects or people without having to breakdown exactly what they are, this is a natural function of the human brain. However the fact that you make a determination that you see someone in the courtyard means that you have indirectly defined them as a "person" regardless of their gender, your mind makes the determination that you "see a person." Using your example, "you see someone in the courtyard" that means you've naturally determined that it was a person in a courtyard. If you were to say you see "something" in the courtyard, you've determined that you see an object in the courtyard. Either way, youir mind is making a determination of something that is there.
Spirituality is non physical. Thoughts, dreams and love, are byproducts of something that is physical, and there is physical evidence to show they happen. The same is true with spirituality, but it doesn't come from a physical entity.
There is not a strawman, unless it is the continued demanding of physical evidence to prove a spiritual entity, and denying existence because this illogical criteria hasn't been met
If thoughts, and dreams are byproducts of physical reality then how do we know what humans experience regarding spirituality is not merely a byproduct of what their mind experiences in the world? In actuality what you said in the above, God can be merely a byproduct of what people experience in society which leaves no room to determine a distinction between physical reality and spirituality.
All debunked by me.Define "spiritual proof."
Define "god."
Define "definitive proof."
Until then, thread fail.
All are covered in the first two paragraphs of the OP.
Thread success!
Perhaps they were simply unprincipled liars who would say anything to become President?I also think, since all US presidents have been spiritual, we're safe with them.
I wonder if spirituality is like the Emperors new clothes. You are an idiot if you cannot see the fine embroidery!Apparently, that seems to be what Boss is implying to those of us that dont "see"--or is it "Feel"--this spiritual realm or have spiritual experinces.
We are spiritual fools that are to incompetent to realize the metaphysical world right in front of us. Not a very conducive approach to teach someone about things they do not see.
I think I asked a similiar questionto yours earlier.
For awhile, I thought he was talking in terms of concepts. Seems like every argument he pushed in the beginning was more of proof for the concept of god.
But when he began to talk of spiritual proofs--the argument began to settle on what exactly is "spiritual proof". So far it seems to be other peoples claims of spiritual experience which we suppose to take as is.
I have some issues with calling that proof.
Ah ...that's" stalking" Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense..Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is ScientificOh I have to disagree just a bit. It takes faith to believe according to the evidence available that life began without a designer.
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
What are the Criteria of Science?:
Science is:
Consistent (internally & externally)
Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
Useful (describes & explains observed phenomena)
Empirically Testable & Falsifiable
Based upon Controlled, Repeated Experiments
Correctable & Dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have & more)
Tentative (admits it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Is Creationism logically consistent?:
Creationism is usually internally consistent and logical within the religious framework in which it operates. The major problem with its consistency is that creationism has no defined boundaries: there is no clear way to say that any particular piece of data is relevant or not to the task verifying or falsifying creationism. When you deal with the non-understood supernatural, anything is possible; one consequence of this is that no tests for creationism can really be said to matter.
Is Creationism parsimonious?:
No. Creationism fails the test of Occams razor because adding supernatural entities to the equation when they are not strictly necessary to explain events violates the principle of parsimony. This principle is important because it is so easy for extraneous ideas to slip into theories, ultimately confusing the issue. The simplest explanation may not always be the most accurate, but it is preferable unless very good reasons are offered.
Is Creationism useful?:
To be useful in science means that a theory explains and describes natural phenomena, but creationism is not able to explain and describe events in nature. For example, creationism cannot explain why genetic changes are limited to microevolution within species and dont become macroevolution. A true explanation expands our knowledge and understanding of events, but saying that God did it in some mysterious and miraculous way for unknown reasons fails in this.
Is Creationism empirically testable?:
No, creationism is not testable because creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism. Creationism relies on supernatural entities which are not only not testable, but are not even describable. Creationism provides no model that can be used for making predictions, it provides no scientific problems for scientists to work on, and does not provide a paradigm for solving other problems unless you consider God did it to be a satisfactory explanation for everything.
Is Creationism based upon controlled, repeatable experiments?:
No experiments have ever been performed that either demonstrate the truth of Creationism or suggest that evolutionary theory is fundamentally flawed. Creationism did not originate out of a series of experiments that produced anomalous results, something that has occurred in science. Creationism has, instead, developed out of the religious beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians in America. Leading Creationists have always been open about this fact.
Is Creationism correctable?:
No. Creationism professes to be the absolute Truth, not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. When you believe that you already have the Truth, there is no possibility of future correction and no reason to look for more data. The only real changes which have occurred in the creationist movement is to try and push the biblical arguments further and further into the background in order to make creationism look more and more scientific.
Is Creationism progressive?:
In a sense creationism could be considered progressive if you say God did it to explain all previous data as well as previously unexplainable data, but this renders the idea of progressive growth of scientific ideas meaningless (another good reason for science being naturalistic). In any practical sense, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what came before and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
Does Creationism follow the scientific method?:
No. First, the hypothesis/solution is not based on analysis and observation of the empirical world - rather, it comes directly from the Bible. Second, as there is no way to test the theory, creationism cannot follow the scientific method because testing is a fundamental component of the method.
Do Creationists think Creationism is science?:
Even prominent creationists like Henry Morris and Duane Gish (who pretty much created scientific creationism) admit that creationism is not scientific in creationist literature. In Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, Morris, while discussing catastrophism and the Noachic flood, says: We cannot verify this experimentally, of course, any more than any of the various other theories of catastrophism [e.g. Velikovsky], but we do not need experimental verification; God has recorded it in His Word, and that should be sufficient.
This is a statement of religious faith, not a statement of scientific discovery.
Even more revealing, Duane Gish in Evolution? The Fossils Say No! writes:
We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.
So, even leading creationists basically admit that creationism is not testable and clearly state that biblical revelation is the source (and verification) of their ideas. If Creationism is not considered scientific by the movements own leading figures, then how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously as a science?
Is Creationism Science? Creationists Claim that Creationism is Scientific, But It's Not Science
Are you two stocking me lol.
Definitive proof that God exists?
another classic false declarative from wyc.I have given an argument from the standpoint of Logic that goes ignored that does suggest a designer (GOD).
Not ignored exactly. Just dismissed as irrelevant. There is just nothing logical about appeals to supernaturalism.
You have brought up arguments that are long known to be flawed, and therefore they are categorized as arguments that are basically pointless. Whenever I see deliberately self-destructing arguments, I point out that the fallaciousness of them is so overwhelming, one has to consciously and deliberately blind oneself to the flaws.
First, let me make an assumption that we are in agreement that god(s) have no attributes other than those that most Theists apply to him after acknowledging that he/her is beyond human comprehension. So how does a mere mortal apply these various attributes to the incomprehensible? Like most religionists, you drench your gods with human attributes while at the same time claiming he is beyond our power to understand.
Perhaps what you assert as divine can be divined (in which case it would belong to the natural world). But theists insist the supernatural does not belong in the natural realm and to that the materialist says, Okay, then by definition it is not rational and if it is not rational, knowable, extant, etc. then it is indistinguishable from nothingness. Hence, why believe it is true?"
It's not irrelevant You just have no answer for it nor do you like it that my argument trumps your your belief system.
Define "spiritual proof."
Define "god."
Define "definitive proof."
Until then, thread fail.
All are covered in the first two paragraphs of the OP.
Thread success!
There is no PHYSICAL proof, that's what you mean to say. There is overwhelming spiritual proof, but your mind is closed to it. I covered this in the first two paragraphs of the OP.
Exactly. You can't posit a claim that something metaphysical exists without substantiating it. You really didn't cover anything because you are positing claims without 1) defining what is something and 2) not supporting your argument. Your making the claim that something spiritually exist but cannot be proven using physical measurement, so my point is how can you posit any claim about something metaphysical if you cannot measure an incorporeal reality?
I agree that different cultures practice spirituality differently. This is why the question can't be objectively evaluated on the basis of any specific incarnation of what "god" is. Humans could ALL be wrong about what god is, that has not a thing to do with whether god exists.
If you don't see how spirituality has contributed to the progress of man, I don't know what to tell you... it has been an intrinsic and inseparable characteristic for as long as man has existed. What you keep saying is, spiritual belief is so important to man because it became so important to man. SMH.
Ok. Religious spirituality has its benefits, after all it inspired mankind to examine the cosmos, medicine, science throughout the ages. But spirituality, along with man's lust for dominance, also inspired man to commit murder, rape, looting and much more atrocities.
Did you go to the same public school as newpolitics, where they never taught you about commas in a sentence? See... the comma, means the sentence keeps going and there is more to be added. I gave you a universal definition, which you demanded, but I did so with the caveat that spirituality means different things to different people. My subsequent comments explain how religious beliefs are manifestations of spirituality. Again, people do not have to all agree on something for it to exist.
No. You gave me a universal definition of religion the following is a true definition:
spir·i·tu·al adjective \ˈspir-i-chə-wəl, -i-chəl, -ich-wəl\
Definition of SPIRITUAL
1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : incorporeal <spiritual needs>
2a : of or relating to sacred matters <spiritual songs> b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal <spiritual authority> <lords spiritual>
3: concerned with religious values
See:Spiritual - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
My argument intentionally ignores specific definitions, because they aren't needed to prove existence.
I take you didn't study philosophy. You can't posit a claim without defining it to support whether its true. Thus your claim that X is true (X representing spirituality) is a fallacy because you have not determined how spirituality exists or failed to do so.
