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.
Those without spiritual connection (are often the misfits in society) ... attempt to live immorally.
Take away (God) and society would crumble into immoral chaos.
truly remarkable statements considering whoever requires written scriptures to formulate their (God), being the majority are "Those without spiritual connection" who do live immorally - and but for the "few" with Spiritual connection, society "would crumble into immoral chaos" ... the Land of Sinners.
.
Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Just think about how uneducated people were 2000 years ago. They didn't even know what science was back then.
Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
Argument from ignorance. A common attempt to shift the burden of proof. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
Why there is no god
I think we would probably be better off without it. Remember species whose members are predisposed to cooperate are more likely to survive and pass on their genes.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true. I also don't think it is necessary. Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class. But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.
Yes, and isn't it fucking astonishing that humans, by-and-large, still believe in something greater than self?
Science has not disproved God, it can't disprove God. There are more humans believing in God on the planet today than anytime before in history. Per capita, the numbers are overwhelming, and they always have been... always will be. No civilization has ever managed to survive more than 50 years without spirituality.
Argument from ignorance. A common attempt to shift the burden of proof. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
Why there is no god
Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true. I also don't think it is necessary. Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class. But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.
Now you're really showing what a fucking moron you are. The poor and middle class are much worse off under Obama than they ever have been under ANY GOP president. Your Democrats have had ample opportunities to raise taxes and eliminate tax breaks, why haven't they done so? And hate to break the news to ya, but Obama took $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING on social security reform, they are perfectly content with allowing the program to continue on the path of insolvency, apparently so morons like you can blame the failure on Republicans when it goes tits up in another 20 years.
Oh... and I've yet to see an example of a free society which is predominately atheist. Got any examples you wish to share or is this just more of you shooting off your big mouth?
Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true. I also don't think it is necessary. Smarter people won't put up with, for example, what the GOP did to the poor and middle class. But because the GOP has the anti gay and abortion voters locked down, they continue to give all the tax breaks to the rich, cut spending on the poor, defund ss and medicare which we are all going to need, all because people are religious/stupid.
The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists (OR GAYS) are generally more peaceful proves Boss incorrect.
Now you're really showing what a fucking moron you are. The poor and middle class are much worse off under Obama than they ever have been under ANY GOP president. Your Democrats have had ample opportunities to raise taxes and eliminate tax breaks, why haven't they done so? And hate to break the news to ya, but Obama took $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare. The Democrats have done absolutely NOTHING on social security reform, they are perfectly content with allowing the program to continue on the path of insolvency, apparently so morons like you can blame the failure on Republicans when it goes tits up in another 20 years.
Oh... and I've yet to see an example of a free society which is predominately atheist. Got any examples you wish to share or is this just more of you shooting off your big mouth?
Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
Don't know about the Land of Sinners. I just know that self-appointed morality is useless because humans will rationalize whatever behavior they please because they can. If there is no accountability whatsoever, then moral boundaries mean nothing. Yep... without some spiritual foundation (a condition we'll never realize as humans) then society would collapse into immoral chaos in a matter of a few generations.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
Has any civilization ever really existed without spirituality? Even those recent regimes which have tried to outlaw religious beliefs have not, I think, succeeded in that task.
I would say, instead, that religious/spiritual belief has been so prevalent in human history that we have yet to really see a society (and may never see one) in which the large majority have no such beliefs.
One could say that having a society with spiritual beliefs is a guarantee that society will collapse, as other than the current societies, every society with such beliefs has ended.
In other words, your own argument that humanity has an inherent spiritual connection makes the idea of a non-spiritual society pretty unlikely, so there's not much evidence to go on to say what would happen with such a society one way or another.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
Argument from ignorance. A common attempt to shift the burden of proof. The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.
Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.
It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.
Why there is no god
Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
As long as you realize your arguments are unsupportable/unfalsifiable, that's all I need. You are correct I can't prove there is no god and I/We don't know everything so as long as you aren't acting like Gismys like you know for a fact.
But, you should know that this/your argument is # 19 at Why there is no god
You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?
There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.
Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
They compare, sorry. As I already noted, Ogres, beasts, boogeymen have all shared time in the inventions of mankind.
And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
Again, another "because I say so" argument.
And bear in mind (to borrow one of your pointless arguments), science has not disproven Ogres, beasts, boogeymen, Leprechauns etc., so as extant entities, they are equally as viable as your gods.
The only way they could be equally viable is if humans had predominately worshiped these over the course of human history. They haven't, so... nope. Still, you are correct, science can't disprove their existence so science can't say they don't exist. Curiously, we don't see a lot of you people on these boards fighting tooth and nail to disprove ogres and leprechauns.
But hey... thank you for pointing out some of the rich human history with regard to spirituality. It's just more evidence of a clear human spiritual connection which can't be denied. A connection that follows man back to his origins and has always been present.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
false! there is nothing outside nature god is either part of nature or imaginary.Okay.... So please show me where I've ever stated that God is proven fact? I am arguing against those who want to claim NO GOD is a proven fact, when that's inaccurate. Your blog post doesn't change that. Belief is always a valid position if there is evidence for your faith in the belief. Those who are spiritually connected have all the evidence they need to support their faith. You can holler "unsupportable/unfalsifiable" all day long, it doesn't change this fact. God isn't physical nature, therefore, it can't be evaluated with physical science. How many times do I have to repeat this? Seems I've typed it about a thousand times in this thread, and it keeps flying comfortably over your pinhead.
If I didn't believe in anything other than physical nature, then I would be skeptical of God too. I can see no possibility of God in a physical sense. There is no physical evidence to suggest a God in a physical sense. However, I am aware of something beyond the physical, a spiritual energy that courses through this universe and humans are able to connect with. Science is of no use because it can't evaluate that which is not physical.
As long as you realize your arguments are unsupportable/unfalsifiable, that's all I need. You are correct I can't prove there is no god and I/We don't know everything so as long as you aren't acting like Gismys like you know for a fact.
I never said my arguments are unsupportable or unfalsifiable, I wouldn't make them if that were the case. Human are, and have always been, spiritually connected. This is supportable through archeological finding. Humans continue to be spiritually connected in spite of science explaining away the great unknowns, this is falsifiable.
I DO know for a fact that God exists, I can't prove it to you because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence and spiritual evidence is all that can verify God. So I've not claimed that I have proved God exists, but I do know that God does exist.
I can't. But I've never said that God doesn't have a physical component. Certainly, God does have a physical component and it's physical nature itself. God created it. The reality which exists in the spacetime continuum we experience physical nature, was a creation of God. This includes science, physics, and everything in physical reality of existence. God itself is not physical, it can't be... else it couldn't have created physical nature. Nothing can create itself, it's a logical dichotomy. God is spiritual energy which existed before physical nature.
There is nothing "supernatural" about spiritual nature. It's perfectly natural, just not part of physical nature. It's not paranormal, it's spiritual nature. Humans have been connecting with it for all their existence in some form or another.
Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.
This is what you call an argument from ignorance. You are ignoring there is something beyond physical nature. You are pretending that ONLY physical nature exists and if we can't explain something with physical science it must not exist. Therefore, black holes must not exist... they defy physical science. Physics says nothing travels faster than the speed of light, but that's precisely what is the makeup of a black hole, something travelling faster than the speed of light. Dark energy and dark matter, completely contradict all known physics. This is why we had to invent quantum physics, to explain what physical science couldn't explain. By the way, dark energy and dark matter comprise 96% of our universe.
What "precludes deeper insight" is to ignorantly assume there is no possibility outside of physical nature as currently defined. Science and an open mind has to consider the possibility there may be something more, something we don't yet understand with physical science.
There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say I dont know yet and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.
Exactly, so when I hear idiots like you proclaiming God is "supernatural" or doesn't exist, instead of admitting you don't know, then I have to call you out for that. You see, you've stopped looking, you've concluded that God can't exist because physical nature can't explain God.
Human history clearly refutes your nonsensical comments. The fact is, civilizations have risen and fallen without the use nor any requirement for your particular gawds or the gawds of others.
We also know that civilizations have risen and fallen in spite of them having gawds. It seems that even the benefit of having one or many gawds is not an indication that alleged gawd-given "morality" is going to further success of any civilization.
BTW, I was disappointed you didn't entertain us with a litany of slogans including, but not limited to: spiritually connect, spiritual nature, intrinsically connected, intrinsically spiritually connected, and my favorite, ".... because I say so".
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
Human history is that man has always been spiritual. From the very first civilization to today. No civilization has ever risen without spirituality, nor has one ever existed for very long in absence of spirituality. Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive. It is a guarantee they will collapse without it. This is why you can't name a civilization that has existed without spirituality, there isn't one.
I know you desperately want to believe that but littering your posts with repeated falsehoods won't make those falsehoods true.
As I already pointed out to you, civilizations have risen and fallen with and without gawds. Most of humanity has come and gone without the invention of your gods. So quite clearly, your gawds or other conceptions of gawds are not a requirement for success or failure of civilizations or cultures. This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
Many cultures and civilizations have created images and icons that represent occurrences in nature as a way of explaining things they didn't understand but that is not implying they "spiritually connect", that they worshipped gods of "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, were "intrinsically spiritually connected" or any other goofy cliche' you dump in most threads.
If we examine your nonsensical claim that cultures and civilizations without "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" is a guarantee they will collapse without it, you need to identify why all the cultures/civilizations you insist had "spiritual nature", or "intrinsically connected, or "intrinsically spiritually connected" eventually failed anyway.
So tell us then, oh sage of "spiritual nature", "intrinsically connected, and "intrinsically spiritually connected", why did the Roman, Greek, Mayan civilizations fail when they had more gawds, "spiritual nature", were, "intrinsically connected, and were "intrinsically spiritually connected"?
Why didn't their gawds, "spiritual nature", "intrinsic connection", and "intrinsically spiritual connection" saved them?
You should try reading the entire post instead of knee-jerk reacting like some kind of autobot. I clearly stated: Nobody has claimed spirituality is a guarantee a civilization will survive.
This is why you cannot identify a single culture or civilization that "collapsed" specifically because they didn't have gods.
There are none that have ever risen to any great prominence without spirituality. It's kind of a 'prerequisite' for human civilization. There are numerous examples of civilizations which started with spirituality and tried to abandon it then failed miserably. The great Roman Empire collapsed when they perverted their spirituality into nationalism. The Soviet Union nearly collapsed because of state mandated Atheism and banning of religion, until they realized the people needed it and reformed. China is another example, and there are countless others. Societies and civilizations don't thrive very well without human spirituality, they never have and never will.
You can't say that god has a non physical component because how can you prove it?
