Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Special Knowledge Claim - Soul/Spiritual

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:15:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 4:07:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Physical healings are temporary and people die anyway but spiritual healings last for ever.

You are spiritually blind Anna. If you were not you would be able to see and understand all perspectives and not have any problems with any of them.

At 5/23/2015 6:57:58 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Two different worlds, two different natures, the flesh and the spirit. You live your life in the flesh, but you also have the option of learning the spiritual, to live by spirit.

At 5/31/2015 3:48:33 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:

The atheist loser who keeps trying to tell everyone about God and spirituality with absolutely zero spiritual experience.

If you keep posting your idiocy of trying to play authority over spiritually conscious people you just continue to make fools of yourselves

At 6/10/2015 1:52:44 PM, Serato wrote:
I know my ego, and I know my soul, I know the difference between these two.

You're confusing the soul for the spirit.

These are just a few of the many such arguments being presented.

Using spirits/souls as special knowledge for the basis of anyone's argument cannot be justified or accepted. All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.

I have heard only one explanation that referenced spirits with the Gospels, that we assume the Bible describes this realm. If so, then any argument in which souls/spirits are invoked, there must then be provided the relevant verses from the Bible. In this way, the discussion continues as both parties have been provided all the evidence and can discuss accordingly.

Otherwise, all claims of special knowledge regarding souls/spirits should be automatically rejected.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:29:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There is no evidence of a spirit or soul leaving the body when a person dies. The human body is made of physical matter and broken to the most basic units consist of atoms, photons,quarks and electrons . None of these subatomic particles are seen leaving the body or transforming into other agents. Neither are energy fields seen leaving the dead body. Even out of body experiences are summarily dismissed as fiction. Any wonder why reincarnations still remain a mystery.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color? The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it? To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?

Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:26:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?


Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,

No, the point of the OP. Sorry that's too tough a nut for you to crack.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:27:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:26:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?


Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,

No, the point of the OP. Sorry that's too tough a nut for you to crack.

Cry me a river
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:27:32 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:26:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?


Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,

No, the point of the OP. Sorry that's too tough a nut for you to crack.

Cry me a river

Pity all you can do is repeat that same childish remark over and over.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:45:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:42:45 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:27:32 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:26:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?


Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,

No, the point of the OP. Sorry that's too tough a nut for you to crack.

Cry me a river

Pity all you can do is repeat that same childish remark over and over.

Boo hoo
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 1:48:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:45:47 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:42:45 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:27:32 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:26:27 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:25:00 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:21:32 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

So......you can't really define soul or spiritual except to say no one who doesn't believe as you do can understand it? And you insist that those who don't believe have some kind of physical/psychological problem? Can you provide any reference for your assertion, something that has been demonstrated in any way other than 'so-and-so said so and I believe it, now I can see the spiritual world'?


Non sequitur.

Cry me a river,

No, the point of the OP. Sorry that's too tough a nut for you to crack.

Cry me a river

Pity all you can do is repeat that same childish remark over and over.

Boo hoo

Ah, the mature, informative response of a learned Christian apologist. Impressive.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 3:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

Yes John, that is exactly what I'm doing, seeking help from those who can explain the spiritual realm and how to access it. It's a requirement for any topic of discussion, John, that all parties can observe. Is it too much to ask for that we all can observe that realm together and form a foundation of understanding?

Isn't that exactly the mission of believers, to teach others how to access their theological worlds so they may gain an understanding and convert?

Why would you or anyone else not want for that to happen?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
joetheripper117
Posts: 284
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 7:12:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:15:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 4:07:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Physical healings are temporary and people die anyway but spiritual healings last for ever.

You are spiritually blind Anna. If you were not you would be able to see and understand all perspectives and not have any problems with any of them.

At 5/23/2015 6:57:58 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Two different worlds, two different natures, the flesh and the spirit. You live your life in the flesh, but you also have the option of learning the spiritual, to live by spirit.

At 5/31/2015 3:48:33 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:

The atheist loser who keeps trying to tell everyone about God and spirituality with absolutely zero spiritual experience.

If you keep posting your idiocy of trying to play authority over spiritually conscious people you just continue to make fools of yourselves

At 6/10/2015 1:52:44 PM, Serato wrote:
I know my ego, and I know my soul, I know the difference between these two.

You're confusing the soul for the spirit.

These are just a few of the many such arguments being presented.

Using spirits/souls as special knowledge for the basis of anyone's argument cannot be justified or accepted. All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.

I have heard only one explanation that referenced spirits with the Gospels, that we assume the Bible describes this realm. If so, then any argument in which souls/spirits are invoked, there must then be provided the relevant verses from the Bible. In this way, the discussion continues as both parties have been provided all the evidence and can discuss accordingly.

Otherwise, all claims of special knowledge regarding souls/spirits should be automatically rejected.

Thank you so much, its about time someone brought up the issue with these arguments.
"By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out."
-Richard Dawkins
"The onus is on you to say why; the onus is not on the rest of us to say why not."
-Richard Dawkins
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:06:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

This comment is a bit redundant. Rather than assert an unnecessary psychological diagnosis, why not attempt to contribute content related to the topic?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:26:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:15:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 4:07:58 AM, Skyangel wrote:

Physical healings are temporary and people die anyway but spiritual healings last for ever.

You are spiritually blind Anna. If you were not you would be able to see and understand all perspectives and not have any problems with any of them.

At 5/23/2015 6:57:58 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Two different worlds, two different natures, the flesh and the spirit. You live your life in the flesh, but you also have the option of learning the spiritual, to live by spirit.

At 5/31/2015 3:48:33 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:

The atheist loser who keeps trying to tell everyone about God and spirituality with absolutely zero spiritual experience.

If you keep posting your idiocy of trying to play authority over spiritually conscious people you just continue to make fools of yourselves

At 6/10/2015 1:52:44 PM, Serato wrote:
I know my ego, and I know my soul, I know the difference between these two.

You're confusing the soul for the spirit.

These are just a few of the many such arguments being presented.

Using spirits/souls as special knowledge for the basis of anyone's argument cannot be justified or accepted. All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.

I have heard only one explanation that referenced spirits with the Gospels, that we assume the Bible describes this realm. If so, then any argument in which souls/spirits are invoked, there must then be provided the relevant verses from the Bible. In this way, the discussion continues as both parties have been provided all the evidence and can discuss accordingly.

Otherwise, all claims of special knowledge regarding souls/spirits should be automatically rejected.

Lol there is always so many things corrupt in your posts and that is because you operate in deceit.

Lets start with my comment above...
"Two different worlds, two different natures, the flesh and the spirit. You live your life in the flesh, but you also have the option of learning the spiritual, to live by spirit."

If you think for one second there is one single thing I said above that is not Christianity point it out in detail. I can support that whole sentence with one passage from Jesus, as I already told you, if you can't handle the spiritual take a hike this is not the atheist forum.
Secondly, anything I say about Christianity in specific I more than always use scripture to support it not even a question. Any other thing I say based on experience is simply answering inquiries, and then those answers turn into this crap.

I have never expected a single person to believe in God based on my own experience and if you or anyone else does not wish to know don't ask.
So we have atheists who complain about using scripture only, then we have atheists complaining about personal experience after they have asked for it so which do you guys want?? what satisfies all your daily demands and ridicule?
You don't want to discuss scripture, you don't want to discuss spiritual things or personal experience than why are you here? Why do you spend your entire days harassing theists here if you don't want to discuss anything related to the spirit?

Again, there is nothing special about me or anyone else you keep using your own made up words. The only thing that gives me a reason to speak is the fact that I am a Christian, I've been applying it to my life since I was young and if you don't want to know anything then simply leave it alone but no, you create pretend little threads to bait theists, harassing with accusations and spread your slime all over this forum.

I'm only responding here to anyone who may be curious and haven't caught on to this atheist little games of deceit but you Danne will be ignored have a great evening.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:44:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:26:53 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Lol there is always so many things corrupt in your posts and that is because you operate in deceit.

Yes, I understand you're compelled to fabricate accusations being one of the main perpetrators of arguing from the basis of a spiritual realm, calling other people names when they have no idea what you're talking about. And, that is where the real deceit resides.

Lets start with my comment above...
... if you can't handle the spiritual take a hike this is not the atheist forum.

You had ample opportunity to explain yourself in great detail regarding the spiritual but failed miserably, hence there is no spiritual to handle. It's all in your head.

Secondly, anything I say about Christianity in specific I more than always use scripture to support it not even a question.

No, you don't, that was why I created the thread just for you.

Any other thing I say based on experience is simply answering inquiries, and then those answers turn into this crap.

No, the answers were crap and you got called out on them.

So we have atheists who complain about using scripture only, then we have atheists complaining about personal experience after they have asked for it so which do you guys want?? what satisfies all your daily demands and ridicule?

Did you not read the OP?

You don't want to discuss scripture, you don't want to discuss spiritual things or personal experience than why are you here?

You are now blatantly lying. That is the point entirely, to discuss "spiritual things" but you and the others refuse to tell us how to do that, how to access that realm.

Why do you spend your entire days harassing theists here if you don't want to discuss anything related to the spirit?

Why do you have to make up lies?

Again, there is nothing special about me or anyone else you keep using your own made up words. The only thing that gives me a reason to speak is the fact that I am a Christian, I've been applying it to my life since I was young and if you don't want to know anything then simply leave it alone but no, you create pretend little threads to bait theists, harassing with accusations and spread your slime all over this forum.

I'm only responding here to anyone who may be curious and haven't caught on to this atheist little games of deceit but you Danne will be ignored have a great evening.

The spiritual game of deceit has been caught and is now under scrutiny. This you cannot ignore.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2015 8:48:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have a long standing question for the believers in spiritual healing that has never been successfully answered by any of them.

"Why don't these guys ever heal amputees? Why do they not grow back limbs?

Why do they not go into hospital ERs or acute care wards or even hostels, where so many people are dying?

Why do all these healing take place in there own controlled and highly-biased and decidedly un-scientific settings?

Why does god hate amputees?

LOL---If you Google that question you will find some very humorous sites!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 12:25:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:06:48 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

This comment is a bit redundant. Rather than assert an unnecessary psychological diagnosis, why not attempt to contribute content related to the topic?

I am doing exactly what he does to others. It obviously seems redundant to you but not to me. I am treating him with the same contempt he treats others.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 12:32:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 3:25:53 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:06:07 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 6/11/2015 1:01:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:34:01 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
" All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.
"

Bad argument as a general principle. Then this applies to any general experience.

Can you explain what it is like to see the color green to someone who can't see it? Can they observe color?

First of all, I think you're missing the point of the OP. It's not about trying to convey something that simply can't be conveyed due to the physical impossibilities; ie "conveying color to the blind".

Secondly, you imply that we are "blind" and cannot see the "color green" of which is the spiritual. No, we are not blind, we are all humans with all the same physical attributes, the only difference is in how well our attributes function, relative to us all.

In other words, you nor anyone else is special in that your body somehow possesses other organs or muscles that transverse all reality into some other realm. Our eyes see the same wavelengths of light as everyone else.

And last of all, do you actually see any threads on these forums in which someone is trying to convey the color green to a blind guy? Seriously.

The simple fact is that most experiential knowledge ("what it is like) is very difficult to accurately convey and to have people get your point. Can you explain what hypothermia feels like to one has never felt it?

Once again, you are talking apples and oranges and are missing the point of this thread. And again, you imply there is something missing from others, that you are special. That is the point of this thread.

To a certain degree, yes. But actually feeling it is the only way to gain that experiential knowledge.

And we all share the same feelings because we are all human. Do you have a point?

I recently wen to the Grand Canyon. One of my friends asked me to explain what it is like. Pictures don't do it justice. Explaining what's there doesn't do it justice. Finally I just said "you have to be there and see it/experience it for yourself" to know what I'm talking about". People do that all the time. There's only so much one can explain about it.

So what? Anyone can go to the Grand Canyon and experience it's splendor. Irrelevant.

It doesn't follow that because one can't convey what it is like to experience some particular thing or things that bringing up that particular experience is inadmissible in debate.

I didn't say that. There is no reason whatsoever that both parties cannot discuss what a spirit is and what a soul is, that is no problem. It's when one uses that special knowledge as the basis of their argument without that particular experience being defined and understood by both parties. That is inadmissible.

Not saying their arguments are any good, but your argument for rejecting these claims abased on your general principle isn't good at all either.

You have missed the point of the OP.

Seek help

Yes John, that is exactly what I'm doing, seeking help from those who can explain the spiritual realm and how to access it. It's a requirement for any topic of discussion, John, that all parties can observe. Is it too much to ask for that we all can observe that realm together and form a foundation of understanding?

Isn't that exactly the mission of believers, to teach others how to access their theological worlds so they may gain an understanding and convert?

Why would you or anyone else not want for that to happen?

Bs, you think I'm stupid enough to fall for your insidious lies, maybe the first time but not after you trolled me for three days and wouldn't concede a conclusion to a single premise, making me repeat the same sentence is as many ways possible, instead of just admitting you are wrong. You probably want me to highlight what I mean, but I'm passed that, three days on a single premise, if you didn't play ball then I doubt you will play now.

You are a dishonest, lying, disrespectful, waste of time. I have zero respect for you.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 12:42:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:29:27 PM, Harikrish wrote:
There is no evidence of a spirit or soul leaving the body when a person dies. The human body is made of physical matter and broken to the most basic units consist of atoms, photons,quarks and electrons . None of these subatomic particles are seen leaving the body or transforming into other agents. Neither are energy fields seen leaving the dead body. Even out of body experiences are summarily dismissed as fiction. Any wonder why reincarnations still remain a mystery.

Then what is the "LIFE" that leaves the body when a person dies if there is no evidence of anything leaving the body?
LIFE obviously leaves the body. If it did not people would not be declared to be dead or lifeless or void of life or gone elsewhere, departed or passed away.

If no energy is observed leaving the body, is the Life which leaves the body, something different to energy?

Curious minds would like to know. Where does the LIFE go if nothing leaves the body?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 12:55:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 8:48:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I have a long standing question for the believers in spiritual healing that has never been successfully answered by any of them.

"Why don't these guys ever heal amputees? Why do they not grow back limbs?

Because spiritual healing has nothing to do with physical healing. It is about healing the thinking processes of the mentally lame who cannot stand on their own two feet but need to prop themselves with imaginary friends and magic words " in the name of Jesus" as they wave their hands in the air to summon the magical healing spirits.

Why do they not go into hospital ERs or acute care wards or even hostels, where so many people are dying?

Because they have no power to do any physical healing.
You need to be a doctor if you wish to help heal people.

Why do all these healing take place in there own controlled and highly-biased and decidedly un-scientific settings?

Imaginary aches and pains need placebos to heal them. God has such a placebo affect on some people.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 2:07:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/11/2015 12:15:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Using spirits/souls as special knowledge for the basis of anyone's argument cannot be justified or accepted. All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.

As I explained to you in another thread. I see the word "Spirit" as referring to the "Life" ( attitudes, emotions, biases, perceptions, conscience, etc ) inside humans. When it comes to other living things, it is the "thing" in the life form which makes them appear to be alive as opposed to appearing to be dead. Do you have a scientific name or label for that Life force or energy in the living organisms?
What is it in green healthy grass that makes it look alive as opposed to the brown dry grass which looks dead?
Whatever you want to call it, it is that LIFE which departs from the body or living organism when the organism dies. Religions call that the "Spirit". It refers to the energy or whatever it is that causes something to be living. "Lack of Life" is the same as saying "The Spirit of Life has departed from the body".
If no energy or chemicals depart from the body at death what exactly departs from the body? Something obviously does.

I have heard only one explanation that referenced spirits with the Gospels, that we assume the Bible describes this realm. If so, then any argument in which souls/spirits are invoked, there must then be provided the relevant verses from the Bible. In this way, the discussion continues as both parties have been provided all the evidence and can discuss accordingly.

Otherwise, all claims of special knowledge regarding souls/spirits should be automatically rejected.

You want to study the word Spirit as referenced in the gospels? I can do that. I have counted approx 60 references to the word Spirit in the gospels. Do you want to go through every one of them or just pick a few?

Let's start with the first reference to the word "Spirit" in Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

In the above story the "Spirit" is described as descending like a dove and "lighting upon him" or landing on Jesus.
Should we take that literally or is it an idiom or allegory or parable of some kind?

Referencing the same story of Jesus baptism in Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

If we take the story literally we have a man being baptized in physical water and as soon as he came out of the water, he saw a bird apparently coming out of heaven in physical form and landing on him and also heard a voice from the sky or heaven saying.... etc.

If he literally saw a real bird come flying out of the sky and it landed on him and never left him, did the man go around with a dove sitting on his shoulders like some pirate with a parrot on his shoulders?
I very much doubt it.
Otherwise everyone who got baptized in physical water would also need to experience the same physical shape of a dove flying out of the sky and sitting on them to have any physical proof that they had the "Holy Ghost" or the "Spirit" upon them.

If the "Spirit" appeared in the form a dove in the story, does that mean all doves in the world are the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Ghost"?

Some Christians like to say the dove is symbolic of the "SPIRIT" and was not a real physical bird at all, but Luke claims the bird appeared in physical form ( a bodily shape) but they remain adamant that the character Jesus was real and not symbolic of anything else.

It amuses me how some people are determined to mix up allegories and reality and claim part of a story are historical and other parts are allegorical or symbolic.
It is much like claiming Red Riding Hood, the woodcutter and the Grandmother in the story were real people but the wolf in the story was symbolic.
It is sheer stupidity in my perception. Either the whole story is a parable, an allegory, a symbolic story and all the characters are fictional or it is a true story which is historical and everything in it is real.

Anyway, the story can obviously be interpreted as something that happened in reality or as a symbolic story , myth, parable or allegory or some kind which is conveying a message under the outward appearances of it all.

Can any of you see a deeper message in the story than just the surface appearances?
Why would any perfect person who has never sinned need to be baptized for the remission of sins?
How can physical water wash away sins?
What difference does it make to a person if a dove sits on their shoulders or not?
If the dove was not real or physical what makes anyone believe the character was real or physical?
If the dove was physical as Luke suggests, how would that dove ( spirit) lead Jesus into the wilderness after his Baptism? Did it fly in front of him and cause Jesus to follow him?
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

This is the same Spirit which landed on him in the form of a dove remember.

Why would a bird lead a man into a desert to be tempted by a devil? In what form did this devil appear? Was the devil ( also a spirit by the way) a figment of Jesus imagination? A physical lust/ desire he needed to overcome? Some evil voice within his own mind which no one else could hear or something else?

Taking the story literally is simply ludicrous in my perception.
Reading it like a myth which is teaching a moral lesson or principle about living in an unselfish humble gentle peaceful attitude ( like a dove which harms no one) as you learn to overcome the selfish attitudes within which tempt you to become rich and famous and be some dictator makes far more sense.

Overcoming the "evil spirit" ( devil) within is all about resisting temptation of the fleshly desires to be famous or to be seen as someone special.
Living with the Holy Spirit upon you is all about living in a loving gentle attitude which harms no one.

Anyone can do that. You do not need to be connected to some invisible supernatural force to live in love and have good attitudes toward others.

What do you glean from the story? Is it just a meaningless story to you or do you actually see a lesson in it?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 1:55:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 12:25:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:

I am doing exactly what he does to others. It obviously seems redundant to you but not to me. I am treating him with the same contempt he treats others.

You're just a very angry guy, John, you've alienated a number of folks here in the same way, simply because you were horrified to watch as your belief system was shown to be irrational and childish, this you took personally and behaved accordingly. It's why you believe that when we show contempt for your religious beliefs, we're somehow showing contempt for you personally.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 2:01:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 12:32:03 AM, johnlubba wrote:


Bs, you think I'm stupid enough to fall for your insidious lies, maybe the first time but not after you trolled me for three days and wouldn't concede a conclusion to a single premise, making me repeat the same sentence is as many ways possible, instead of just admitting you are wrong. You probably want me to highlight what I mean, but I'm passed that, three days on a single premise, if you didn't play ball then I doubt you will play now.

In other words, you believed to have a valid argument, when in fact you did not, hence your disdain. You were simply incapable of forming one and projected those failures onto us, who you considered trolls.

Yeah, I get that, John.

You never pointed out or validated any lies for which you accuse, everything is a lie that doesn't support your religious beliefs.

You are a dishonest, lying, disrespectful, waste of time. I have zero respect for you.

And yet, you're still compelled to respond even though you promised long ago to never respond. Curious behavior, John.

But, I understand why you would say those things, being a result of not being able to formulate or hold a valid argument. Just deal with it, John, so you can come back and try to contribute something of value, instead.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 3:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 12:55:30 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/11/2015 8:48:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
I have a long standing question for the believers in spiritual healing that has never been successfully answered by any of them.

"Why don't these guys ever heal amputees? Why do they not grow back limbs?

Because spiritual healing has nothing to do with physical healing. It is about healing the thinking processes of the mentally lame who cannot stand on their own two feet but need to prop themselves with imaginary friends and magic words " in the name of Jesus" as they wave their hands in the air to summon the magical healing spirits.


Why do they not go into hospital ERs or acute care wards or even hostels, where so many people are dying?

Because they have no power to do any physical healing.
You need to be a doctor if you wish to help heal people.


Why do all these healing take place in there own controlled and highly-biased and decidedly un-scientific settings?

Imaginary aches and pains need placebos to heal them. God has such a placebo affect on some people.

My bad!

I stand corrected, Angel. I read the Op too fast and thought it was re physical Faith Healing. LOL. I had just finished an article on the shuckster Benny Hinn, so I guess I had that on my mind.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 4:57:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 2:07:24 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 6/11/2015 12:15:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Using spirits/souls as special knowledge for the basis of anyone's argument cannot be justified or accepted. All information, data and knowledge on any subject or topic of discussion MUST be disclosed to both parties for synthesis and evaluation. If one side holds evidence that the other side cannot observe to understand and critique, then the argument should be considered invalid and rejected until such time disclosure completes.

As I explained to you in another thread. I see the word "Spirit" as referring to the "Life" ( attitudes, emotions, biases, perceptions, conscience, etc ) inside humans. When it comes to other living things, it is the "thing" in the life form which makes them appear to be alive as opposed to appearing to be dead. Do you have a scientific name or label for that Life force or energy in the living organisms?
What is it in green healthy grass that makes it look alive as opposed to the brown dry grass which looks dead?
Whatever you want to call it, it is that LIFE which departs from the body or living organism when the organism dies. Religions call that the "Spirit". It refers to the energy or whatever it is that causes something to be living. "Lack of Life" is the same as saying "The Spirit of Life has departed from the body".
If no energy or chemicals depart from the body at death what exactly departs from the body? Something obviously does.



I have heard only one explanation that referenced spirits with the Gospels, that we assume the Bible describes this realm. If so, then any argument in which souls/spirits are invoked, there must then be provided the relevant verses from the Bible. In this way, the discussion continues as both parties have been provided all the evidence and can discuss accordingly.

Otherwise, all claims of special knowledge regarding souls/spirits should be automatically rejected.

You want to study the word Spirit as referenced in the gospels? I can do that. I have counted approx 60 references to the word Spirit in the gospels. Do you want to go through every one of them or just pick a few?

Let's start with the first reference to the word "Spirit" in Matthew 3:16-17 "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."


In the above story the "Spirit" is described as descending like a dove and "lighting upon him" or landing on Jesus.
Should we take that literally or is it an idiom or allegory or parable of some kind?

Referencing the same story of Jesus baptism in Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

If we take the story literally we have a man being baptized in physical water and as soon as he came out of the water, he saw a bird apparently coming out of heaven in physical form and landing on him and also heard a voice from the sky or heaven saying.... etc.

If he literally saw a real bird come flying out of the sky and it landed on him and never left him, did the man go around with a dove sitting on his shoulders like some pirate with a parrot on his shoulders?
I very much doubt it.
Otherwise everyone who got baptized in physical water would also need to experience the same physical shape of a dove flying out of the sky and sitting on them to have any physical proof that they had the "Holy Ghost" or the "Spirit" upon them.

If the "Spirit" appeared in the form a dove in the story, does that mean all doves in the world are the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Ghost"?

Some Christians like to say the dove is symbolic of the "SPIRIT" and was not a real physical bird at all, but Luke claims the bird appeared in physical form ( a bodily shape) but they remain adamant that the character Jesus was real and not symbolic of anything else.

It amuses me how some people are determined to mix up allegories and reality and claim part of a story are historical and other parts are allegorical or symbolic.
It is much like claiming Red Riding Hood, the woodcutter and the Grandmother in the story were real people but the wolf in the story was symbolic.
It is sheer stupidity in my perception. Either the whole story is a parable, an allegory, a symbolic story and all the characters are fictional or it is a true story which is historical and everything in it is real.

Anyway, the story can obviously be interpreted as something that happened in reality or as a symbolic story , myth, parable or allegory or some kind which is conveying a message under the outward appearances of it all.

Can any of you see a deeper message in the story than just the surface appearances?
Why would any perfect person who has never sinned need to be baptized for the remission of sins?
How can physical water wash away sins?
What difference does it make to a person if a dove sits on their shoulders or not?
If the dove was not real or physical what makes anyone believe the character was real or physical?
If the dove was physical as Luke suggests, how would that dove ( spirit) lead Jesus into the wilderness after his Baptism? Did it fly in front of him and cause Jesus to follow him?
Matthew 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

This is the same Spirit which landed on him in the form of a dove remember.

Why would a bird lead a man into a desert to be tempted by a devil? In what form did this devil appear? Was the devil ( also a spirit by the way) a figment of Jesus imagination? A physical lust/ desire he needed to overcome? Some evil voice within his own mind which no one else could hear or something else?

Taking the story literally is simply ludicrous in my perception.
Reading it like a myth which is teaching a moral lesson or principle about living in an unselfish humble gentle peaceful attitude ( like a dove which harms no one) as you learn to overcome the selfish attitudes within which tempt you to become rich and famous and be some dictator makes far more sense.

Overcoming the "evil spirit" ( devil) within is all about resisting temptation of the fleshly desires to be famous or to be seen as someone special.
Living with the Holy Spirit upon you is all about living in a loving gentle attitude which harms no one.

Anyone can do that. You do not need to be connected to some invisible supernatural force to live in love and have good attitudes toward others.

What do you glean from the story? Is it just a meaningless story to you or do you actually see a lesson in it?

Umm...as far as what makes grass--or any other plants--green?

It's called chlorophyll..a chemical produced by photosynthesis.

And last I checked there was nothing especially spiritual or mystical about it. It works solely by following actual biological and chemistry methods.

You know: just like Evolution and the LUCA! LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 5:48:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/14/2015 4:57:52 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:

What do you glean from the story? Is it just a meaningless story to you or do you actually see a lesson in it?

Umm...as far as what makes grass--or any other plants--green?

It's called chlorophyll..a chemical produced by photosynthesis.

Yes I understand that perfectly. That is not exactly what I was trying to get at.
There is a process present in living things which causes them to look and act alive. That process has various names. In plants it is the process of photosynthesis. When that process ceases the plant dies. Nothing leaves the plant. It is just a process within it that stops or at least appears to change into a different process which makes it appear as if the life within it has gone or "something has left the building" as it were.
Our ancient forefathers obviously knew very little ( compared to what we know today ) about the processes that go on inside living things so they labelled the life "Spirit" . At least that is how I see it. You might see it differently ?

And last I checked there was nothing especially spiritual or mystical about it. It works solely by following actual biological and chemistry methods.

Exactly. I agree there is nothing mystical about Spirit. I simply see it as the life within living things which manifests itself through them by making them appear to be alive as opposed to appearing dead.
You could say "Spirit" or "Life" is the end result of various processes in a body working together to give an object a unique and individual character and personality. No two are exactly the same when it comes the character and personality of living things.
At least religion has a word to describe that "vibe" which manifest itself through the attitudes and actions of people. What does science call it? Personality? Does personality disappear into thin air when people die? How about self awareness? Does that disappear into thin air? Where do our loved ones go? Why do we grieve for them if all that has happened is a change in a chemical process of the body?
Can science prove personality exists? Can you take something out of a person and study the personality under a microscope or can you only observe it as long as it stays in the body and keeps the body alive?

You know: just like Evolution and the LUCA! LOL

I will argue with you about that science and fiction on the other thread. ;-)
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sky....

Actually the vast majority of neurologists and Psychiatrists take the materialist view when it come to the question of what constitutes our personalities.

They claim..to put it in a layman's nutshell, that "it's all chemicals." That is: what we call our "minds" is actuallt only the chemistry working of that 3 lb organ we call the brain. These chemicals are called Neurotransmitter; there are hundreds. Most people are only familiar with the ones that they hear cause some of the more well-known mental illnesses, like depression, which is thought to be exacerbated by a shortage of the NT called Serotonin. Or GABA. That is why your major anti=depressants like Prozac and Zoloft are in a class known as SSRI's. The 1st "S" is for Serotonin and the drug causes more of it to float around the brain. Basically.

So...since we know for sure and see everyday that meds can affect personalities, the mental health pros claim that ALL of our personality is caused by various amounts of certain NTs in one's brain.

Their materialist view is also supported by the fact that they can and have stimulated emotional expereinces and feelings of ALL sorts, merely with either chemicals or with Neural Electrical Stipulations, using a TENS unit. They can and have induced everything from religious experiences to fear to paranoia to elation.

So to the materialist there is no need for a soul. It's all chemicals, baby. When you die, you die. The light goes out--the neurons and the axons and the dendrites quite sending and receiving NT's (respectively) and your personality expires when this occurs. Like watching an actor on a TV with a great personality. Pull the power cord, no actor. No personality.

I am nt sure I agree with this. As I said on an earlier post, I once sat-in on an autopsy/brain extraction (I am in the mental health field, BTW and my degree is in Psych) and when the MD excised the brain she said something along the lines of "And here we have all that was Mary; her thoughts, fears, desires, her personality.

I just found this to be a bit lacking. I don't know. I sort of vacillate on how I feel about the existence of a "soul" that is not of materialistic/physiological origins.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2015 7:11:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sky....

Actually the vast majority of neurologists and Psychiatrists take the materialist view when it come to the question of what constitutes our personalities.

They claim..to put it in a layman's nutshell, that "it's all chemicals." That is: what we call our "minds" is actuallt only the chemistry working of that 3 lb organ we call the brain. These chemicals are called Neurotransmitter; there are hundreds. Most people are only familiar with the ones that they hear cause some of the more well-known mental illnesses, like depression, which is thought to be exacerbated by a shortage of the NT called Serotonin. Or GABA. That is why your major anti=depressants like Prozac and Zoloft are in a class known as SSRI's. The 1st "S" is for Serotonin and the drug causes more of it to float around the brain. Basically.

So...since we know for sure and see everyday that meds can affect personalities, the mental health pros claim that ALL of our personality is caused by various amounts of certain NTs in one's brain.

Their materialist view is also supported by the fact that they can and have stimulated emotional expereinces and feelings of ALL sorts, merely with either chemicals or with Neural Electrical Stipulations, using a TENS unit. They can and have induced everything from religious experiences to fear to paranoia to elation.

So to the materialist there is no need for a soul. It's all chemicals, baby. When you die, you die. The light goes out--the neurons and the axons and the dendrites quite sending and receiving NT's (respectively) and your personality expires when this occurs. Like watching an actor on a TV with a great personality. Pull the power cord, no actor. No personality.

I am nt sure I agree with this. As I said on an earlier post, I once sat-in on an autopsy/brain extraction (I am in the mental health field, BTW and my degree is in Psych) and when the MD excised the brain she said something along the lines of "And here we have all that was Mary; her thoughts, fears, desires, her personality.

I just found this to be a bit lacking. I don't know. I sort of vacillate on how I feel about the existence of a "soul" that is not of materialistic/physiological origins.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.