Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theists and atheists

kowalskil
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 11:23:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Theists and Atheists

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu...

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
Ludwik Kowalski, author of "Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality." <http://csam.montclair.edu...

http://csam.montclair.edu...

It is a testimony based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

The more people know about proletarian dictatorship the less likely will we experience is. Please share the link with those who might be interested, especially with youn
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 12:08:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The only way it could be done is if Materialists and spiritualists realize that they are looking at different aspects of reality.

Materialists look at the outside world... with a reliance on the senses and more mathematical way of measuring things.

Spiritualists look at the inside world... It's psychology, the examination of the cognitive process. It more deals with the inner workings of the mind than objective reality.

The problem is, spiritualists tend to be very dense, and take things literally when they are meant to be metaphorical concepts that describe cognitive concepts. If not that, they tend to be space cadets.

Spiritualists tend to be very bad interpreters.

Materialists are often times thrown off by what spiritualists say, so they don't really give the spiritual outlook much of a chance... Which is a shame, because you need to have a very materialistic understanding to get spiritual concepts a lot of times.

Both sides are also incredibly pretentious for the most part, and take themselves too seriously.

Knowledge in one area augments your ability to effectively think in another.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 1:35:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is coming from someone who doesn't know what spiritualism is, because if understand what it is, you'd feel like a complete dipsh!t for saying it is anything goes crap.

True spiritualism meshes with reality.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 1:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
True spiritualism deals with being aware of ones thought processes, understanding of oneself. It has to do with mental and emotional growth.

It's all very natural and real stuff.

New Agers, pseudo-eastern philosophy wannabes, and religious idiots give spiritualism a bad name.

They make the world "spiritual" about as meaningful as the word "god".

Because communication is inefficient, the ignorant ruin anything sacred. Say something today that is obviously true, and a thousand years from now, people are going to be saying it is ridiculous.

Not because what you are saying is ridiculous, but because people won't understand what you are saying.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 1:35:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is coming from someone who doesn't know what spiritualism is, because if understand what it is, you'd feel like a complete dipsh!t for saying it is anything goes crap.

True spiritualism meshes with reality.

No no, the problem with "True" spiritualism, is the same problem with identifying a "True" christian. Every spiritualist claims to be the "True" one, and theres no way of determining who is true and who is false. Your argument fails. I know very well what spiritualism is, probably better than you, if youre going to spout out words like "True" spiritualism.

I understand that there are different levels of spiritualism, from people who believe that there is another universe out there where their spirits will reside in after they die, to people who beleve that every persons consciosness is a realm in their own right. But the problem that every single one of these levels suffer from, is the utter inability to demonstrate what they say is true. And if you cant demonstarte that what you claim, is true, then this is no different than making claims about invisible unicorns.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 2:24:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:

Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

Materialism defines reality, you have to be clear you are dealing with a definitional argument. There is no conflict per say as much as there are two different definitions for what existence means. Is is not the case that materialism is not foundational and thus has no more claim to objective truth than spiritualism.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 2:29:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 11:23:44 AM, kowalskil wrote:

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

"Mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (initially accepted truths) and uses logical derivation to justify consecutive claims. Science is different; here claims are justified by reproducible experimental observations, not by pure logic. "

This is perhaps one of the largest problems between theism and materialism. Science does start with foundational axioms, the most basic of which is that the way things are is the way we sense them, that the universe is as we perceive it - that is materialism.

There is no way for science to falsify that, thus for example by Popper's own criteria the epistemology is foundational, and obviously so is theism. But you do make a good point, atheists will often attack theism as being ignorant and theists will return and attack atheists for being naive.

You may want to put up a few debate challenges, they would be interesting.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 3:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 2:23:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 1:35:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is coming from someone who doesn't know what spiritualism is, because if understand what it is, you'd feel like a complete dipsh!t for saying it is anything goes crap.

True spiritualism meshes with reality.

No no, the problem with "True" spiritualism, is the same problem with identifying a "True" christian. Every spiritualist claims to be the "True" one, and theres no way of determining who is true and who is false. Your argument fails. I know very well what spiritualism is, probably better than you, if youre going to spout out words like "True" spiritualism.


This is no Scottsman fallacy. Use your head, it should be obvious what is true or not. You determine what is true and false by figuring it the fvck out, experimenting, and NOT just taking someone's word for it.

Obviously, what is true is what is correct. If a position is patently absurd, how could it be "true"? You are making things unnecessarily fuzzy.

I clearly defined spirituality as self analysis and improvement. If you want to define it in a different way, by all means, dispute my definition.

I understand that there are different levels of spiritualism, from people who believe that there is another universe out there where their spirits will reside in after they die, to people who beleve that every persons consciosness is a realm in their own right. But the problem that every single one of these levels suffer from, is the utter inability to demonstrate what they say is true. And if you cant demonstarte that what you claim, is true, then this is no different than making claims about invisible unicorns.

What are you disputing? The things that I say are true, and prove themselves. If I define a term, and that definition is not one that conflicts with reality, how can you dispute that?

If you want to define spirituality as belief in afterlife, ghosts, and other wishful superstitions that are beyond knowing, by all means, do so. I speak of things that are fully within the realms of knowing, and are obvious to anyone who understands what I am saying.

I can tell you until my face turns blue that the sun lights up the outside world, but until you walk outside, you aren't going to see it.

Don't get lost in semantics. Discuss meaning, don't discuss words. The people who have spirituality wrong are not talking about the same thing. They are fools.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 3:53:25 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 2:23:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 1:35:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is coming from someone who doesn't know what spiritualism is, because if understand what it is, you'd feel like a complete dipsh!t for saying it is anything goes crap.

True spiritualism meshes with reality.

No no, the problem with "True" spiritualism, is the same problem with identifying a "True" christian. Every spiritualist claims to be the "True" one, and theres no way of determining who is true and who is false. Your argument fails. I know very well what spiritualism is, probably better than you, if youre going to spout out words like "True" spiritualism.


This is no Scottsman fallacy. Use your head, it should be obvious what is true or not. You determine what is true and false by figuring it the fvck out, experimenting, and NOT just taking someone's word for it.

I completely agree, this is the no true scottsman fallacy. Im glad you can recognize the fallacy that you have commited.

Christ, how is this any different than a muslim telling you "Use your head, it should be obvious which religion is true". You speak as though you know what my life has been through. Ive learned about many different spiritual experiences, and ive also spent a couple months going around Japan and staying at various Buddhist temples and experienced that as well. And guess what? My opinion is the same as before.

Obviously, what is true is what is correct. If a position is patently absurd, how could it be "true"? You are making things unnecessarily fuzzy.

Really? So when you ask a Jehovahs witness and Mormon about which of their religions is the True one, what do you think they will answer?

What are you disputing? The things that I say are true, and prove themselves. If I define a term, and that definition is not one that conflicts with reality, how can you dispute that?

If you want to define spirituality as belief in afterlife, ghosts, and other wishful superstitions that are beyond knowing, by all means, do so. I speak of things that are fully within the realms of knowing, and are obvious to anyone who understands what I am saying.

I can tell you until my face turns blue that the sun lights up the outside world, but until you walk outside, you aren't going to see it.


Don't get lost in semantics. Discuss meaning, don't discuss words. The people who have spirituality wrong are not talking about the same thing. They are fools.

First off, though, the second part of my comment was an off comment rant. it wasnt exactly aimed a you. However, i still have a problem with what you said here.

The problem here with what you said, is that we already have a word for what you deem to be spiritual. Its called psychology. I mean, we are discussing this in the context of theism. Maybe you didnt bother reading the original post, but i have the same problem with people who come to tell me that God is Love. We already have a word for Love, its the word "Love". You are attributing the word "Spiritual" with something which already has a sufficiently acceptable word attached to it.

Although you did the no true scottsman fallacy by claiming that only a "True" spiritualist would do so and so, your argument fails on the fact that materialists arent denying that the brain, the mental state, doesnt exist. Psychology is a valid scientific field. You havent represented the spiritualists at all, and all you are is a materialist looking at the field of psychology.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 4:23:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem here with what you said, is that we already have a word for what you deem to be spiritual. Its called psychology. I mean, we are discussing this in the context of theism. Maybe you didnt bother reading the original post, but i have the same problem with people who come to tell me that God is Love. We already have a word for Love, its the word "Love". You are attributing the word "Spiritual" with something which already has a sufficiently acceptable word attached to it.

Spirituality: an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

Although you did the no true scottsman fallacy by claiming that only a "True" spiritualist would do so and so

The No True Scottsman fallacy is bogus and doesn't deserve to be identified as a legitimate aspect of formal logic. There's nothing logical about the No True Scottsman. The premise of this fallacy is a bare assertion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 5:24:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 4:51:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

There's nothing logical about the No True Scottsman.

Where is the logical fallacy in the assertion of the no true scottsman fallacy.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 5:33:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 4:51:26 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2011 4:23:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem here with what you said, is that we already have a word for what you deem to be spiritual. Its called psychology. I mean, we are discussing this in the context of theism. Maybe you didnt bother reading the original post, but i have the same problem with people who come to tell me that God is Love. We already have a word for Love, its the word "Love". You are attributing the word "Spiritual" with something which already has a sufficiently acceptable word attached to it.

Spirituality: an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of their being; or the "deepest values and meanings by which people live.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Read the first post.
Although you did the no true scottsman fallacy by claiming that only a "True" spiritualist would do so and so

The No True Scottsman fallacy is bogus and doesn't deserve to be identified as a legitimate aspect of formal logic. There's nothing logical about the No True Scottsman. The premise of this fallacy is a bare assertion.

It isnt bogus, The no true scottsman fallacy is actually made up of a combination of different fallacies such as begging the question and Equivocation fallacy.

If youre saying that the no true scotsman fallacy doesnt deserve to be a fallacy by itself because it is made up of other fallacies, then i agree with you there. But it still is a fallacy and htere is nothing illogical about the no True scottsman.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 6:04:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 4:23:31 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 3:53:25 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 2:23:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/2/2011 1:35:51 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/2/2011 12:42:17 PM, tkubok wrote:
The problem with spiritualism, is that its full of cr@p. Its anything goes. You can claim to be anyone, know anything, and do anything. Materialism on the other hand, relies solely on reality.

The only way materialism will ever coincide witbh spiritualism, is if all the materialists became retarded. But that would probably make them into spiritualists.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

This is coming from someone who doesn't know what spiritualism is, because if understand what it is, you'd feel like a complete dipsh!t for saying it is anything goes crap.

True spiritualism meshes with reality.

No no, the problem with "True" spiritualism, is the same problem with identifying a "True" christian. Every spiritualist claims to be the "True" one, and theres no way of determining who is true and who is false. Your argument fails. I know very well what spiritualism is, probably better than you, if youre going to spout out words like "True" spiritualism.


This is no Scottsman fallacy. Use your head, it should be obvious what is true or not. You determine what is true and false by figuring it the fvck out, experimenting, and NOT just taking someone's word for it.


I completely agree, this is the no true scottsman fallacy. Im glad you can recognize the fallacy that you have commited.


I just asserted that I am not making a fallacy. I clearly defined something.

Christ, how is this any different than a muslim telling you "Use your head, it should be obvious which religion is true". You speak as though you know what my life has been through. Ive learned about many different spiritual experiences, and ive also spent a couple months going around Japan and staying at various Buddhist temples and experienced that as well. And guess what? My opinion is the same as before.


I speak as if you don't know what spirituality is, which you clearly don't. Your view of spirituality has been tainted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and you attach all this extra baggage to it.

Obviously, what is true is what is correct. If a position is patently absurd, how could it be "true"? You are making things unnecessarily fuzzy.

Really? So when you ask a Jehovahs witness and Mormon about which of their religions is the True one, what do you think they will answer?



I don't care how they answer, it isn't relevant. Reality stands on its own. If you take their word for it, you are stupid.

What are you disputing? The things that I say are true, and prove themselves. If I define a term, and that definition is not one that conflicts with reality, how can you dispute that?

If you want to define spirituality as belief in afterlife, ghosts, and other wishful superstitions that are beyond knowing, by all means, do so. I speak of things that are fully within the realms of knowing, and are obvious to anyone who understands what I am saying.

I can tell you until my face turns blue that the sun lights up the outside world, but until you walk outside, you aren't going to see it.


Don't get lost in semantics. Discuss meaning, don't discuss words. The people who have spirituality wrong are not talking about the same thing. They are fools.

First off, though, the second part of my comment was an off comment rant. it wasnt exactly aimed a you. However, i still have a problem with what you said here.

The problem here with what you said, is that we already have a word for what you deem to be spiritual. Its called psychology. I mean, we are discussing this in the context of theism. Maybe you didnt bother reading the original post, but i have the same problem with people who come to tell me that God is Love. We already have a word for Love, its the word "Love". You are attributing the word "Spiritual" with something which already has a sufficiently acceptable word attached to it.


It is psychology. Yes. Now, realize that language evolves over time. Realize that words have many different meanings. Realize that everyone has different understandings of these terms. Words are symbols, they are not concrete.

Realize that we have more of a mutual understanding than you realize.

Although you did the no true scottsman fallacy by claiming that only a "True" spiritualist would do so and so, your argument fails on the fact that materialists arent denying that the brain, the mental state, doesnt exist. Psychology is a valid scientific field. You havent represented the spiritualists at all, and all you are is a materialist looking at the field of psychology.

Self Psychology is the same thing is spirituality. I never said that materialist denied the brain. I never said they denied the mental state.

Most psychologist are not very good at understanding the cognitive process. If they were, they wouldn't have so many mental problems of their own.

I'm not making an argument, I'm asserting a definition.

I'm also going to make the assertion that a lot of the wild stuff you see in religion is really an attempt at describing psychology. The meanings get corrupted over time, but if you study this stuff in depth, it becomes a bit more obvious.

Also, certain defining messages of a few important religious figures becomes apparent. Jesus and Buddha in particular touched greatly on the limitations of language, and how semantics were corrupted greatly over time.

Of course, even their discourses on these subjects are hard to understand to most people.

What most people take as being spirituality is nothing more than an outward display of ignorance, gullibility, and laziness when it comes to examining oneself.

Pay attention, and the limitations of human communication are apparent. Pay attention, and the remarkable rate in which our language evolves is apparent. It's rare to find two people who can understand each other.

What I am asserting is fact. If properly understood, it proves itself. Whether or not someone believes what I say or not is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Hell, another might already know what I'm saying, and not realize that they believe the same thing. They can die thinking that they disagreed with me, all the while they actually agreed with me the whole time.

It is all part of the big cosmic joke, man.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 7:46:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 6:04:18 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

I just asserted that I am not making a fallacy. I clearly defined something.

That is the fallacy, a term is defined so as to be able to preserve an assertion in the face of an refutable objection.

.... well of course that is absurd, but that is not "true spirituality" ...

That is exactly what the fallacy refers to.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 7:53:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:46:58 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
That is the fallacy, a term is defined so as to be able to preserve an assertion in the face of an refutable objection.

.... well of course that is absurd, but that is not "true spirituality" ...

That is exactly what the fallacy refers to.

Again, why is is this a fallacy? Here's an example:

Let's say a "Christian" attends a mosque every week, travel to Mecca once a year, participates in Ramadan, burns Bibles, and dresses in Muslim garment. I will probably say, that's not a true Christian. Would you then retort: "No True Scotsman fallacy!"
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 9:10:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 7:53:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Would you then retort: "No True Scotsman fallacy!"

No, Christians do that.

The fallacy is to counter a refutation to an assertion by redefining the assertion. If you allow this logic then no assertion can ever be refuted because any refutation will simply be countered with the assertion being redefined to remove the refutation.

If you actually think counter definitionals are valid then make any assertion, challenge me to a debate and I will counter your position by using the no true scotsman fallacy. And I will show you how I can use this no matter what you argue or what evidence you assert..
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2011 10:55:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I apologize, I'm mistaking spirituality with Spiritualism. They are very different things apparently.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 12:41:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/2/2011 6:04:18 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
I just asserted that I am not making a fallacy. I clearly defined something.
No, thats WHY you are making the fallacy.

Every christian in the world has defined what their religion constitutes, and claims that their religious sect is "True". Otherwise, how would we be able to differentiate between a Jehovahs Witness and a Catholic?

You shouldve said "Thats what spirituality means TO ME" instead of saying "Thats what TRUE spiritualism is".

I speak as if you don't know what spirituality is, which you clearly don't. Your view of spirituality has been tainted by people who have no idea what they are talking about, and you attach all this extra baggage to it.

No no, Again, read the first post. We are talking about spirituality IN THE CONTEXT OF THEISM. As i told you before, your view of spirituality is non-distinguishable from psychology, and therefore I fail to see why you have to differentiate spirituality with Materialism, as you clearly are the same as a materialist.

I don't care how they answer, it isn't relevant. Reality stands on its own. If you take their word for it, you are stupid.

No no, im not taking their word for it, and neither Am I taking YOUR word for it. When YOU claim that your view of spirituality is the "True" view, I am claiming that you are fallacious.

It is psychology. Yes. Now, realize that language evolves over time. Realize that words have many different meanings. Realize that everyone has different understandings of these terms. Words are symbols, they are not concrete.

Realize that we have more of a mutual understanding than you realize.

Realize that words still have a base. Realise that without such a base, language becomes useless. Realize that hiding the word Psychology in the veil of spirituality, is the same as calling an apple, a car. Realize that words are symbols, but they are also fairly damn concrete.

Self Psychology is the same thing is spirituality. I never said that materialist denied the brain. I never said they denied the mental state.

Then how exactly would we differentiate your definition of a spiritualist, from a materialist?

Most psychologist are not very good at understanding the cognitive process. If they were, they wouldn't have so many mental problems of their own.

No no, just because you can solve other peoples problems, doesnt mean you dont have problems of your own. Just like, just because a Doctor can perform surgery and heal other people, doesnt mean he will never get a disease or illness himself.

Your argument fails across the board.

I'm also going to make the assertion that a lot of the wild stuff you see in religion is really an attempt at describing psychology. The meanings get corrupted over time, but if you study this stuff in depth, it becomes a bit more obvious.
This alone shows that you have no idea what religion is trying to assert.
Also, certain defining messages of a few important religious figures becomes apparent. Jesus and Buddha in particular touched greatly on the limitations of language, and how semantics were corrupted greatly over time.

No no, A riddle, a parable, is not the same as stating the limitation of a language. Buddha or Jesus never minced words or used the word "Apple" and meant to refer to a pear.


Pay attention, and the limitations of human communication are apparent. Pay attention, and the remarkable rate in which our language evolves is apparent. It's rare to find two people who can understand each other.
No no, Bull. I agree that language evolves, but what you are trying to do is call an apple, a car. And im sorry, but language is in fact concrete. We may evolve language in order to identify the different TYPES of apples, but that doesnt change the fact that we STILL call it an apple.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter. The real spiritual individuals are those who have ‘awoken' from this delusion illusion and are now conscious of both matter and the hidden forces within and behind phenomena, the Mind or Soul that moves such forces and the Higher Planes of Substance and Vibration which it emanated from – for a period of ‘time'.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:49:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter. The real spiritual individuals are those who have ‘awoken' from this delusion illusion and are now conscious of both matter and the hidden forces within and behind phenomena, the Mind or Soul that moves such forces and the Higher Planes of Substance and Vibration which it emanated from – for a period of ‘time'.

Yes, i agree. My neighbor tells me the invisible elfs keep stealing his underwear. Clearly he has awoken from this delusion called reality and are now conscious of the hidden elements behind why is underwear keeps going missing!!
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 1:58:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:49:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter. The real spiritual individuals are those who have ‘awoken' from this delusion illusion and are now conscious of both matter and the hidden forces within and behind phenomena, the Mind or Soul that moves such forces and the Higher Planes of Substance and Vibration which it emanated from – for a period of ‘time'.

Yes, i agree. My neighbor tells me the invisible elfs keep stealing his underwear. Clearly he has awoken from this delusion called reality and are now conscious of the hidden elements behind why is underwear keeps going missing!!

Behold! The modern method!!!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:25:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:58:03 PM, Ogan wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:49:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter. The real spiritual individuals are those who have ‘awoken' from this delusion illusion and are now conscious of both matter and the hidden forces within and behind phenomena, the Mind or Soul that moves such forces and the Higher Planes of Substance and Vibration which it emanated from – for a period of ‘time'.

Yes, i agree. My neighbor tells me the invisible elfs keep stealing his underwear. Clearly he has awoken from this delusion called reality and are now conscious of the hidden elements behind why is underwear keeps going missing!!

Behold! The modern method of Theists!!

Fix'd
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter.

Actually they don't, materialists will assert things which can not be seen such as dark matter, but have influences that can be detected. A materialist in general is one who defines reality as that which can be sensed, this definition is a general one and has to be extended to noted that verification/falsification are necessary for justification, i.e., if only you can see it - then it is more likely it does not exist than you have some "special sight", unless it can be demonstrated to convey information.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 2:39:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:33:51 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter.

Actually they don't, materialists will assert things which can not be seen such as dark matter, but have influences that can be detected. A materialist in general is one who defines reality as that which can be sensed, this definition is a general one and has to be extended to noted that verification/falsification are necessary for justification, i.e., if only you can see it - then it is more likely it does not exist than you have some "special sight", unless it can be demonstrated to convey information.

Well it was very technical, but what all people see, whether seen, sensed or using instruments is quatum illusion.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:46:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 1:49:29 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2011 1:06:53 PM, Ogan wrote:
Materialists see nothing but a quantum illusion called matter. The real spiritual individuals are those who have ‘awoken' from this delusion illusion and are now conscious of both matter and the hidden forces within and behind phenomena, the Mind or Soul that moves such forces and the Higher Planes of Substance and Vibration which it emanated from – for a period of ‘time'.

Yes, i agree. My neighbor tells me the invisible elfs keep stealing his underwear. Clearly he has awoken from this delusion called reality and are now conscious of the hidden elements behind why is underwear keeps going missing!!

For the millionth time, they're not elves, they're gnomes. And they're not invisible, you're just never looking when they show up.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 7:59:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 2:39:06 PM, Ogan wrote:

Well it was very technical, but what all people see, whether seen, sensed or using instruments is quatum illusion.

It was quantum illusion, if you are going to attack science based on illusions then it would be more correct to note that it is all vibrating-string illusions, or 11D-brane illusions because current understanding is that what we see as quantum effects are just the manifestations of vibrations of tiny strings which are themselves only representations of a much larger D space than what we can see. Of course it may not be strings, it could all be a bunch of loops either, we still don't know yet.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2011 8:01:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/3/2011 7:46:29 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

For the millionth time, they're not elves, they're gnomes. And they're not invisible, you're just never looking when they show up.

Kenyon, they are invisible elves, they just turn into visible gnomes when you look at them, it is the elf-gnome duality of the underwear transfer particle. The unfortunate down side of this is that elves are sexy and gnomes are dead ugly, that was why I championed early for gnome-elf duality but alas it was not to be.