a case for christ

[crowTrobot 2]

"It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort"That is an EXACT description of spirituality. Spirituality is an observable phenomenon - not in the sense that you can SEE it, but you can EXPERIENCE it.

that makes no sense. science is only concerned with the physical, not with "experiences" (except in the sense of exploring the physical states that may underly everything we experience).

People who have spiritual awakenings come to a consensus about life - that's why all major religions have the same foundation (forgiveness, peace, love, prayer/meditation, etc). Science is the same - it makes people come to a consensus about certain aspects of reality. Spirituality, like science, rests on people who must willingly -and openly- put in the effort to experience it, and once they experience they come to a consensus on it.

spiritual experiences certainly do not lead to a consensus about life. quite the opposite. as for forgiveness, peace etc those are just side effects of the moralistic evolution of human society, which has nothing to do with spirituality.

My argument is that science and faith are inherently the same, and both require faith, dedication and openness in order for a person to involve themselves in it, and to understand it.

science doesn't. i understand science, but i'm not a scientist by trade, i don't think about it much, and i've never had any compelling "scientific experiences" in the spiritualistic sense.

I'm confronting the general attitude that many people have: that spirituality is useless, uneccessary, out-of-date and primitive.

spirituality as you are describing it is just brainwashing yourself into thinking a beneficial emotional state is necessarily metaphysical - which many people apparently need to do to maintain it and be happy, so yes it can be beneficial in an individual sense. however looking at the overall picture spirituality tradionally HAS always led to dogma - led to social boundaries and people trying to control each other, and to people promoting anti-intellectual causes, so for human society overall it is worse than useless.

[Hubris 0]

that makes no sense. science is only concerned with the physical, not with "experiences" (except in the sense of exploring the physical states that may underly everything we experience).

Did I say science was concerned with anything but the external (physical) world? No. Science itself is an experience for people though. Practicing science is an experience - that's all I was saying, I think you must have misinterpreted me.

spiritual experiences certainly do not lead to a consensus about life. quite the opposite. as for forgiveness, peace etc those are just side effects of the moralistic evolution of human society, which has nothing to do with spirituality.

Okay, I'm going to clear this up one last time. Spirituality and religion are NOT the same. And it's been proven that a spiritual state of mind is something that when people experience it - it is generally the same. Scientists have done extensive research mapping the brain during people's intense prayer and meditation sessions and they have enough evidence to conclude that people are going through the same thing. Not to mention, everyone who does go through the experience describes the same phenomenon - the feeling of being miniscule, eternal, 'one with everything', understanding, and not feeling alone. I suggest you do some research on this subject, it is extremely interesting - one scientist has even gone as far as inventing a magnetic helmet that re-creates this distinct feeling on 90% of it's subjects (and the people it doesn't affect are the minority of people who have a below average level of activity in the area of their brain that creates these spiritual experiences). Now, this brings up an interesting thing about religious people - and that's that a large portion of religious people (especially in the western world) actually haven't had a spiritual experience of any kind and many of them are simply only educated in the dogma of the religion (which is a real shame). Attaining a spiritual state of mind isn't easy - buddhists monks commit their lives to attaining that state of mind and many of them take years and years to master this state of mind.And how can you make the claim that morality has nothing to do with spirituality? You think it's a coincidence that humans are the ONLY species that have spiritual experiences AND show the highest amounts of altruism, even going as far as sacrificing their own lives for others? (something that no other species on this planet is capable of). Is it just a coincidence that the most moral people in our history also happened to be the most spiritual as well? (Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu). If having a spiritual experience makes you feel like you understand your surroundings and makes you feel deeply connected to other individuals, isn't it only logically correct to assume that this is the inherent feeling that morality spawned from? I'd like to hear your theories on where morality arised from - because as of now, that's one of the few theories out there that can even explain it.

science doesn't. i understand science, but i'm not a scientist by trade, i don't think about it much, and i've never had any compelling "scientific experiences" in the spiritualistic sense.

If you've ever analyzed something, and came to conclusions based on your analysis you have had a scientific experience. It's practically impossible to grow up in this day and age having not experienced a scientific state of mind - its the most common thing in the western world today, schools teach this state of mind to you the second you enter them - however, they do not do that with spirituality. Our society teaches that perspective so much its actually hard for some people to behave in any other way. You may not believe it, but being inquisitive and analytical only became common with the rise of science. For a long time humans were very primitive and did not really advance, being inquisitive wasn't really neccessary back then - surviving was.

spirituality as you are describing it is just brainwashing yourself into thinking a beneficial emotional state is necessarily metaphysical - which many people apparently need to do to maintain it and be happy, so yes it can be beneficial in an individual sense. however looking at the overall picture spirituality tradionally HAS always led to dogma - led to social boundaries and people trying to control each other, and to people promoting anti-intellectual causes, so for human society overall it is worse than useless.

Spirituality doesn't create dogma - people who were inquisitive about the nature of the world create dogma, its just that back then when they didn't have scientific methods (the hypothesis wasn't even created until the renaissance!) they relied on concepts like God and old folktales to explain the questions they didn't know the answers to. They were simply short of methods to investigate, so they did what most people do in situations where they're in the dark and don't know what to do - they guessed and they made things up. Spirituality is not a bad thing - dogma is the bad thing. And by now, our society is educated enough to be able to answer complex questions about the universe (thanks to science), so spirituality can finally be detatched from religion (which is an out-of-date answer to those complex quesitons). Spirituality in itself is very beneficial. Spirituality definitely isn't brainwashing yourself either, a spiritual state of mind can actually be self-induced OR induced into people via powerful hallucinogens or electromagnetic waves (that was actually first discovered by a scientists who had a daughter who kept on having crazy spiritual experiences, he found out it was because her alarm clock beside her bed was emitting specific electromagnetic waves - he later created a helmet that reproduced that effect). It's a completely natural and normal neurological function of the brain and it can be induced by outside stimuli or just through good old fashioned concentration (much like the same state of mind 'Flow' that top-level athletes, professional poker players [most of them describe it as getting 'the feel'], and anyone being forced to perform on a high level. And I don't hear anyone questioning that state of mind).Honestly though, your opinion probably won't change until you actually do have a spiritual experience - and I suggest you actually seriously look into it, because it is something interesting to experience. If you truly do have an inquisitive mind you should look into it, and try to practice enough to build up to it. The experience definitely wouldn't hurt your mind at all, and you don't have to become any dumber to experience - the most intelligent man I know is actually the person who convinced me that it was something I should experience (and believe me, I was NOT easy to convince, I used to be in the same boat as you).

[Hubris 0]

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply.    Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY.    God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

[crowTrobot 2]

Spirituality and religion are NOT the same.

i didn't say that. i said spirituality leads to religeous dogma and always will, unless we admit to ourselves that what causes the benefical spiritual state you are describing isn't necessarily metaphyscal. the very term spirituality implies something definitely metaphysical - so since you describe (and in fact just provided evidence for) spirituality being an entirely physical state of mind, maybe we need a different term for it. yes people have spiritual experiences of the manner you describe after taking drugs.

And how can you make the claim that morality has nothing to do with spirituality? You think it's a coincidence that humans are the ONLY species that have spiritual experiences AND show the highest amounts of altruism, even going as far as sacrificing their own lives for others? (something that no other species on this planet is capable of).

behavior that specifically benefits a family or group unit over the individual has been documented in dozens of species. it boils down to beneficial evolution.

Spirituality definitely isn't brainwashing yourself either

i didn't say it was. i said it seems to always lead to people brainwashing themselves into "faith" in something specific.

[Hubris 0]

Spirituality does not always lead to religious dogma, just because it has in a few cases doesn't mean it always does. I know many spiritual people who have nothing to do with religion. I'd really like to see where you're getting that information from. And the debate over whether or not spirituality is a metaphysical occurence is pointless - that's a concept that is impossible to prove/disprove. I don't care if someone thinks its metaphysical - if it helps them recognize that state of mind then all the better, it makes no real difference, just as long as it doesn't corrupt the experience.And behavior that helps maintain a family is common - but humans do it for more than just their family. Very few species are capable of altruistic behavior for someone outside of their own family, and no species is capable ot altruistic behavior for someone outside of their own society (something that humans have demonstrated that their capable of - even going as far as being altruistic for different species).Once again, spirituality does not lead to people brainwashing themselves, that happens solely when people relate it to a dogma - whether its a religion or a new-age belief. A spiritual experience can be the greatest awakening a person can have - sadly, lots of people try to understand the experience to much and begin to relate it to a dogma (however this has worked out for some people - the people who know how to properly translate the dogma while still maintaining the practice of spirituality).

[Loismustdie 0]

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply.    Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY.    God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

All Major mainstream religions are wrong. Read every post I have in this thread, and it should be around 150 or so, and tell me 1 where I put my money behind any 1 mainstream religion. You won't find it. I believe in pure biblical doctrine, and that's all. I am about as opposite of mainstream as can be. Oddly enough, so was Jesus.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

"It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort"That is an EXACT description of spirituality.

Not the definition you've given in the past; your claim is that spirituality is dependent on personal faith in addition to experience. Objective observations that can be repeated by others, pretty much by definition, or not dependent on any personal faith. If we disagree on the rate of acceleration at which a given object falls at sea level, we can objectively determine what that rate of acceleration is; it will not change based on whether one of us lacks faith in gravity. The same cannot be said for spirituality.So if you're changing your definition of spirituality to something that can be objectively observed without recourse to personal faith, then please feel free to state such a definition. Otherwise, I see no reason to take what you say particularly seriously, because you are busily contradicting yourself.

- On a side not from the argument -Do you have to be so rude when you get in an argument?

If someone shows a gross misunderstanding of plain english, then I first correct them to see whether that misunderstanding is intentional. If they keep on repeating the error many times - as you have - then I conclude, based on past experience, that they are quoting dogma rather than attempting to engage in useful discussion. If and when you do me the honour of actually reading what I write and respond to that, rather than whatever strawman you've built in your mind, then things may well change. I rather doubt we'll find out, though.

Just because it's the internet and you don't have to look me in the eye doesn't mean you have to go ahead and belittle me just because we happen to not see eye to eye. I hope you don't show the same tact to people in day-to-day life.

Most people I interact with in day-to-day life don't hold to completely irrational and self-contradictory positions. In the rare case that they do, we generally agree to disagree. You may recall that I made a similar offer several posts back, and you decided to plow on regardless. Still stands.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

But according to you, LMD's personal beliefs on this spiritual matter are every bit as valid as science. More seriously, the evangelical Christian movement by and large considers hell to be a very real place (or possibly condition), and I think that collectively they should certainly be considered a "major religion". If you're unfamiliar with that movement - the fastest growing group of Christian faiths in the world today - then I respectfully suggest you have a bit of reading to do. They're most certainly not faking, and as a result there's no real reason to believe LMD is, either.

[Loismustdie 0]

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply.    Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY.    God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

You know, now that I actually read some of the stuff you have posted what you are describing is not spiritual at all- it's emotional. Spirituality is on some level a journey but it's not something that you experience, it's something that you work for, meaning that true spirituality would manifest itself in the actions and the results of the actions you take in your life. It is not a feeling, or a ride of sorts, it's a state of being one with what God has in mind for you. Spirituality does bring a certain amount of peace with it that is palpalable if you will, but only in the sense that the things that usually bother normal human beings might not effect you as much.

[Hubris 0]

Not the definition you've given in the past; your claim is that spirituality is dependent on personal faith in addition to experience. Objective observations that can be repeated by others, pretty much by definition, or not dependent on any personal faith. If we disagree on the rate of acceleration at which a given object falls at sea level, we can objectively determine what that rate of acceleration is; it will not change based on whether one of us lacks faith in gravity. The same cannot be said for spirituality.So if you're changing your definition of spirituality to something that can be objectively observed without recourse to personal faith, then please feel free to state such a definition. Otherwise, I see no reason to take what you say particularly seriously, because you are busily contradicting yourself.

Alright, this ends now. I re-read every single one of my posts (and every reply to them) and I found a few things that you just pulled out of thin air and pretended I said. I never once changed my stance on anything, or contradicted myself (if you can show me where I'd be glad to see it).First thing: I never said having a spiritual experience relied on believing in a religious faith. It takes faith that a spiritual experience is possible to make it exist, and that's it. If you don't think spiritual experiences are possible of happening, then you simply won't have one. It takes faith in the existence of the experience to allow it to occur. It does not take faith in a god, or a religion though. They are seperate. I've been saying this from my very first post in this thread (I urge you to re-read it). I have had spiritual experiences - and I don't believe in god, or a metaphysical connection in the universe. I believe that the experience is just a natural part of our psyche, and I clearly stated that in my first post in this thread (and about the three preceeding it too).And when I quoted you saying "It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort" this is what I meant:Observational results are a form of experience - documented experience. You can observe the way you feel when you're having a spiritual experience - and anybody can repeat that experience if they're inclined and willing to put in the effort (and people, no, scientists, have already demonstrated that). So, in other words, someone can repeat these experiences for confirmation. In that sense, you do achieve observational results when you have a spiritual experience - results that create a consensus with other people who have had the same experience. Having a spiritual experience proves to you that certain feelings do exist within yourself (a genuine care for other people, a feeling of association with your surroundings, etc). These results differ from the type of results you get when you create a scientific experience. They differ on subject, but they do not differ in your ability to analyze them afterwards and come to a consensus on them with other people afterwards. This has been demonstrated by scientists who researched spiritual experiences already.So, here is a summary from the very begginning of this thread on the points that I've been trying to get across (and if you re-read everything you will see that I've mentioned all these things, and that none of these ideas contradict each other). If you can show me direct quotes where I might of said something different, I would like to hear it (mainly because I'd like to see where we might of misinterpreted each other, so I can make sure it happens less).1) I think that spirituality is a subjective experience for the participator - an experience that other people can re-create for themsevles to see. Once people experience the same thing, they can come to a consensus on that belief.2) I think that science is a subjective experience for the observer - an experience that other people can re-create for themselves to see. Once people experience the same thing, they can come to a consensus on that belief (or in scientific terms - that hypothesis, theory or fact). The difference in science is that we have instruments that can record what happened in the past - so people don't need to re-create the experiences. There are no instruments that can achieve that in spiritual practices so people have to experience it for themselves in order to understand it.3) For a person to have a spiritual experience they do not have to believe it is a metaphysical connection. They can believe that in order to have one, but they do not have to.4) Science requires faith in the scientific method in order for a person to successfully discover anything. Here's an example of a scenario to explain how science could be renounced: Let's say one day, Quantum physicist finally deduce that the universe is mearly a reflection of our own consciousness - therefore, the best way to find an answer to a question would be to create an answer in our minds and reality would reflect that. Therefore, the entire scientific method would be moot, because the best way to find the truth would be to invent it - not look for it. Scientific attitudes can only be a certainty when we know that reality has a specific way in which it behaves, and that humans possess the necessary tools to discover reality if reality does behave in a specific way - two things that we don't know for sure. The main point is that it takes faith to do EVERYTHING. Some things take small leaps of faith (science) and other things are the equivalent of jumping over the grand canyon (religion) - but faith is involved in every practice. I'm not saying that science is futile or ineffective, I'm just saying that the possibility that it is ineffective is there - so you can't have complete certainty in the scientific method, you have to put a certain amount of faith in the method. Philosophically, there is uncertainty in everything - even the practice of philosophy itself. Spirituality is similar in that it requires faith in the methodology. A priest who was actually also a scientist and an educator is the person who taught me that.5) I said I think its highly possible that spirituality is just a state of mind - that it has the same characteristics as emotions. It could be a connection to the metaphysical, but that's just a could that's impossible to prove/disprove.6) I said that you should stop questioning people who believe in God because it is a futile practice - not because I believe their belief is proper. God is a concept that is infallible - because the whole idea of God is that it relies on you having faith in God's existence without any proof. The idea of God isn't about proof - its about faith and dedication. Evidence cannot change a belief that relies on a lack of evidence as its central philosophy. It's pointless engaging yourself in the argument of whether or not God exists - because it all comes down to a matter of personal faith; you either believe in him, you don't, or you just don't give a shit altogether (I'm suggesting you just stop giving a shit altogether). There's no if's, and's or or's about it.7) Spirituality and science are both equally useful in life. Spirituality teaches people moral lessons, lessons about passion, lessons about concentration, lessons about themselves and lessons about the nature of other people - all from an intimate perspective. Science can teach you those things to, but on a different level and from a detached perspective. Science can also go a step further and teach you about the intracacies of your environment.I hope I haven't missed anything else, if I do I'll be sure to mention it.

If someone shows a gross misunderstanding of plain english, then I first correct them to see whether that misunderstanding is intentional. If they keep on repeating the error many times - as you have - then I conclude, based on past experience, that they are quoting dogma rather than attempting to engage in useful discussion. If and when you do me the honour of actually reading what I write and respond to that, rather than whatever strawman you've built in your mind, then things may well change. I rather doubt we'll find out, though.Most people I interact with in day-to-day life don't hold to completely irrational and self-contradictory positions. In the rare case that they do, we generally agree to disagree. You may recall that I made a similar offer several posts back, and you decided to plow on regardless. Still stands.

No point in addressing this, I already re-read everything and saw the moments where you (may have) misinterpreted me (or where I might have misinterpreted you).

[Hubris 0]

You know, now that I actually read some of the stuff you have posted what you are describing is not spiritual at all- it's emotional. Spirituality is on some level a journey but it's not something that you experience, it's something that you work for, meaning that true spirituality would manifest itself in the actions and the results of the actions you take in your life. It is not a feeling, or a ride of sorts, it's a state of being one with what God has in mind for you. Spirituality does bring a certain amount of peace with it that is palpalable if you will, but only in the sense that the things that usually bother normal human beings might not effect you as much.

I've been talking about intense spiritual experiences. Spirituality in itself is the process of attaining those intense spiritual experiences - something that is a journey, something that people dedicate their entire lives to achieve - throughout all religions. "A state of grace" , "nirvana", "enlightenment" are just some of the names that different religious beliefs have used to describe what scientists now describe as a "spiritual experience" - because regardless of the religion that the different people practice they end up describing the same experience when people test it. And I said earlier on in this thread that I think this could easily be just an unfamiliar emotional state. It could be a divine connection - but that's just a could. If you believe it to be a divine connection then that is simply a matter of your own personal faith.Oh yeah, and sorry for doubting you. It really seemed to me like you were just faking it all. Alright, so you believe in the studying the bible over everything else, alright, whatever, there's no point in arguing with you over that. It's your faith, you can place it where you'd like.

[Hubris 0]

Okay, the jig is up, we all know you're faking. Everyone ignore him now, there's no way this is actually how he thinks (considering almost all major religions have now renounced the existence of hell - its only seen as a metaphor). Just ignore him.

But according to you, LMD's personal beliefs on this spiritual matter are every bit as valid as science. More seriously, the evangelical Christian movement by and large considers hell to be a very real place (or possibly condition), and I think that collectively they should certainly be considered a "major religion". If you're unfamiliar with that movement - the fastest growing group of Christian faiths in the world today - then I respectfully suggest you have a bit of reading to do. They're most certainly not faking, and as a result there's no real reason to believe LMD is, either.

Validity is the word I'm trying to dispel here. I'm trying to get through to people that neither science nor religion are entirely valid - they simply require different amounts of faith to pursue. Science requires much less faith to pursue - its a small leap of faith, you only have to put faith in the belief that being inquisitive is the best way to discover the truth. Religion requires giant leaps of faith - because every claim in religion (and there are ALOT of claims) requires devout faith (where as science only has one claim that requires devout faith).Okay, and sorry about the no one believes in hell comment. I should say that no major non-fundemental religion believes in the existence of hell (and no non-fundemental religion believes that people who participate in other religious beliefs think they belong in hell). If you ask any newly appointed Catholic priest, buddhist monk, taoist, hindu, or Rabbi they will tell you that "Each religion is like a different path leading to the top of the same mountain - they all meet together in the end" (and that end I personally believe to be the coveted 'spiritual experience' one attains through practice and discipline).

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Alright' date=' this ends now.[/quote']I find that unlikely. The metric ton of stuff you spout out following this statement appears to indicate my findings are correct.

First thing: I never said having a spiritual experience relied on believing in a religious faith.

That's nice. You'll find that I said it required personal faith, not specifically religious faith. Since you're kinda confused about what "spirituality" actually means - about which, more later - I wouldn't presume to imagine that you're only speaking of religious faith.

And when I quoted you saying "It rests on observational results that anybody can repeat for confirmation, if they're so inclined and willing to put in the effort" this is what I meant:

Little clue for your future efforts: when you're quoting me, the important thing is what I meant, not what interpretation you might put on it. A recurring theme since you started posting in this thread is that you have more or less ignored what other posters have said - for example, you were completely unaware that Loismustdie was an evangelical Christian, holding a fairly typical set of evangelical Christian beliefs, until quite recently. And when you found out, you dismissed LMD's beliefs as trolling because you couldn't possibly imagine somebody would hold to such notions. If you actually want to get anything out of a discussion, you have to pay attention to what other folks are saying, not project whatever your own thoughts are on the topic. I think LMD is wrong on almost every count, but I don't doubt that LMD has accurately described his (or her) beliefs.Now, on to your new attempt to describe your position:

1) I think that spirituality is a subjective experience for the participator - an experience that other people can re-create for themsevles to see.

I certainly agree that spirituality is subjective, but your additional clause unnecessarily restricts the definition - spirituality certainly includes many phenomena and beliefs that other people cannot re-create for themselves. So your initial definition is incorrect.

2) I think that science is a subjective experience for the observer - an experience that other people can re-create for themselves to see.

Nope. I think I see one of your problems - "subjective" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means, according to various dictionaries I have handy, "Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world", "Existing only in the mind; illusory", "Existing only within the experiencer's mind", and so on. Science is many things, but subjective by any of these definitions isn't one of them.

3) For a person to have a spiritual experience they do not have to believe it is a metaphysical connection. They can believe that in order to have one, but they do not have to.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who'd describe something as spiritual without ascribing some kind of metaphysical connection. Again, some dictionary definitions: "Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material", "Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul", "Of, from, or relating to God; deific", "Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred", "Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural". The very fact that someone describes an experience as "spiritual" suggests that they at the very least suspect that it transcends the physical.

4) Science requires faith in the scientific method in order for a person to successfully discover anything.

No, it does not. You can, for example, discover the acceleration of a falling body by following a reasonably simple set of directions, regardless of whether you have faith in the scientific method or not.

Here's an example of a scenario to explain how science could be renounced

It could be renounced in all sorts of ways, but so far it hasn't been. If there is an omnipotent God, then He could have created the universe yesterday and just made it look old, for whatever reason. But unless and until some evidence of any of those scenarios is produced, they belong to the realm of the subjective, and as such are not science.

5) I said I think its highly possible that spirituality is just a state of mind - that it has the same characteristics as emotions.

I know many spiritual folks who'd argue that emotions are not just a state of mind. But this is a side issue, and not particularly important to this discussion (especially given your confusion over what it means for something to be spiritual).

6) I said that you should stop questioning people who believe in God because it is a futile practice

And insofar as this applies to me personally, you were and are flat-out wrong. I learn things when I question people, because I listen to their answers (whether or not I ultimately agree with those answers is another matter entirely). And, in my experience, learning things is never futile. YMMV.

7) Spirituality and science are both equally useful in life.

That may or may not be; I suspect it varies by individual. What's absolutely clear is that they are not equivalent, as you have suggested. It seems that your belief that they are equivalent was based on ignorance of the common English meanings of various words, and I hope we've cleared up at least some of that. Good luck in re-evaluating your theory.

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Validity is the word I'm trying to dispel here. I'm trying to get through to people that neither science nor religion are entirely valid

This is a strawman. I never claimed that either was entirely valid (or invalid), merely that they are not equally valid. Yet again, you leap to an incorrect conclusion because you refuse to read what other people write. You really need to shake that bad habit if you want anybody to take you at all seriously.

[Loismustdie 0]

Validity is the word I'm trying to dispel here. I'm trying to get through to people that neither science nor religion are entirely valid

This is a strawman. I never claimed that either was entirely valid (or invalid), merely that they are not equally valid. Yet again, you leap to an incorrect conclusion because you refuse to read what other people write. You really need to shake that bad habit if you want anybody to take you at all seriously.

Let's change the subject- The earth is 10,000 years old. :twisted:

[Loismustdie 0]

You know, now that I actually read some of the stuff you have posted what you are describing is not spiritual at all- it's emotional. Spirituality is on some level a journey but it's not something that you experience, it's something that you work for, meaning that true spirituality would manifest itself in the actions and the results of the actions you take in your life. It is not a feeling, or a ride of sorts, it's a state of being one with what God has in mind for you. Spirituality does bring a certain amount of peace with it that is palpalable if you will, but only in the sense that the things that usually bother normal human beings might not effect you as much.

I've been talking about intense spiritual experiences. Spirituality in itself is the process of attaining those intense spiritual experiences - something that is a journey, something that people dedicate their entire lives to achieve - throughout all religions. "A state of grace" , "nirvana", "enlightenment" are just some of the names that different religious beliefs have used to describe what scientists now describe as a "spiritual experience" - because regardless of the religion that the different people practice they end up describing the same experience when people test it. And I said earlier on in this thread that I think this could easily be just an unfamiliar emotional state. It could be a divine connection - but that's just a could. If you believe it to be a divine connection then that is simply a matter of your own personal faith.Oh yeah, and sorry for doubting you. It really seemed to me like you were just faking it all. Alright, so you believe in the studying the bible over everything else, alright, whatever, there's no point in arguing with you over that. It's your faith, you can place it where you'd like.

Intense just describes an emotion. Do you see what I am getting at?

[UglyJimStudly 0]

Let's change the subject- The earth is 10,000 years old. :twisted:

No way, I have socks older than that.

[NortonFan 0]

God makes me feel special.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Circle meet jerk.

[Mattnxtc 0]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u? Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply. Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY. God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

You really do assume an awful lot.

so do u

[Mattnxtc 0]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u? Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply. Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY. God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

You are right and wrong again. Answer me this...If God did not have a love beyond our comprehension for us, then sending Jesus to die for us wouldnt make sense...You are very correct that He is a God of justice which means that those who do not believe will pay for thier sins but he is also a God of Love A quick example: Your mother loves you unconditionally and to see you make mistakes in life likely really hurts her. She would do anything for you but she has to let you make ur mistakes and she will punish you for making those mistakes. To say God doesnt care whether you choose to believe in Him or not is so wrong on many levels and really portrays Him as not being who He is. God is a God of justice and so people will be punished...but dont forget that He is also a God of Love and that he cares so much about you and everybody else that we cannot fathom it. And yes if you check your bible you will see many examples of Gods love for everybody

[Loismustdie 0]

unfortunately lois is still wrong (i really wish he woudl learn). It does absolutely hurt God to know that there are people in this world that dont accept Him. While there is no physical evidence (duh) of him it is hard to deny that there is a creator... From a pure mathematical standpoint (this is a poker forum by the way) the universe being created at random is the equivelent of throwing a dart across teh entire universe and hitting a bulls eye. I dont like those odds do u?  Heres the thing with Christianity...it hasnt been proved wrong. It has only been proved to be more right as the years go by. Im not here tryin to convert anybody b/c well thats not up to me. I know what i believe and thats enogh for me...but dont equate God to a unicorn

I see where you are coming from, but the truth is it does not matter to God one way or the other what you decide to do- If it hurt God to know that there are people in this world that don't believe in him, why create Hell? They have there choice, they have there life, the consequences are there own to deal with. To God, it's one push of a button, to put it simply. Don't mistake God to be the sappy loving God that religion paints him to be these days, he is not. I mean, have you read the Bible? There is alot more punishment then there is reward, and for good reason. The numbers in favor of evil these days is so much greater, so Hells gates are BUSY. God said it would be that way, so it should not suprise you.

You are right and wrong again. Answer me this...If God did not have a love beyond our comprehension for us, then sending Jesus to die for us wouldnt make sense...You are very correct that He is a God of justice which means that those who do not believe will pay for thier sins but he is also a God of Love A quick example: Your mother loves you unconditionally and to see you make mistakes in life likely really hurts her. She would do anything for you but she has to let you make ur mistakes and she will punish you for making those mistakes. To say God doesnt care whether you choose to believe in Him or not is so wrong on many levels and really portrays Him as not being who He is. God is a God of justice and so people will be punished...but dont forget that He is also a God of Love and that he cares so much about you and everybody else that we cannot fathom it. And yes if you check your bible you will see many examples of Gods love for everybody

I cannot be right and wrong, that is impossible. Fact, God talks more of hell then heaven, punishment than reward. That is just fact, I cannot put it any simpler. O.k., like most sappy religous type you have missed the point of what I said. He does not care insomuch as it's not going to break him if Ugly Jim Studly does not believe in him, or Tim Wakefield or Crowtrobot- the whole system is built to where it does not fall apart if unbelievers don't believe, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. See, this is the religous world today and it doesn't operate on a level of reality. It's do your altar call, cry in front of everybody, Jesus loves you, sinners prayer, Jesus loves you- and it was never meant to be that way. It's " Jesus loves you, and if you don't listen I will do one of two things- One, I will make your life miserable on Earth because you know better or Two, I will look the other way because I choose too but in the end you will get yours just like the first guy, because even more so than I love man I HATE SIN AND SINNERS. " Study your bible, if you can possibly draw any other conclusion you are not paying much attention. Sorry.

[Mattnxtc 0]

u still very wrong lois but u do bring up an interesting point...you say and i quote "I HATE SIN AND SINNERS"well you must hate urself b/c unfortunatley for you, u are a sinner and u alway will be. but lets think about the last request of Jesus before he ascended to heavenIll have u turn to Matthew 28:18-20And Jesus came up and spoke to them saying, "all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I cammanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."If God did not love everybody then His last request doesnt make sense. Why would He tell us to go make disciples of a world He doesnt care about? Think about it. You are very hung up on people go to Hell if they dont believe and that is such close minded thinking. God does not want anybody to end up in Hell. Is it inevitable...of course but He doesnt want that. Thats why His last command is to go share His word. He put the pressure on us to make sure that people came to know the love He has for us and what He sacrificed for us. To see God only as a vengeful God is to be so close minded that you are goign to turn people away. God committed the ultimate act of Love when He gave His son for you. REmember that and share that with nonbelievers. Dont try and scare people into believing. Yes it is right to let them know that they will die and go to Hell but to have that be the focus of your ministry is very wrong.

[Loismustdie 0]

u still very wrong lois but u do bring up an interesting point...you say and i quote "I HATE SIN AND SINNERS"well you must hate urself b/c unfortunatley for you, u are a sinner and u alway will be.  but lets think about the last request of Jesus before he ascended to heavenIll have u turn to Matthew 28:18-20And Jesus came up and spoke to them saying, "all authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I cammanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."If God did not love everybody then His last request doesnt make sense. Why would He tell us to go make disciples of a world He doesnt care about? Think about it. You are very hung up on people go to Hell if they dont believe and that is such close minded thinking. God does not want anybody to end up in Hell. Is it inevitable...of course but He doesnt want that. Thats why His last command is to go share His word. He put the pressure on us to make sure that people came to know the love He has for us and what He sacrificed for us.  To see God only as a vengeful God is to be so close minded that you are goign to turn people away. God committed the ultimate act of Love when He gave His son for you. REmember that and share that with nonbelievers. Dont try and scare people into believing. Yes it is right to let them know that they will die and go to Hell but to have that be the focus of your ministry is very wrong.

Not to be rude but LOL- do you even read my posts? All I deal with is the reality of what God had/has in mind, and it never included caring one little bit whenever an unbeliever denies his existence. It doesn't matter to him, he just isn't that sensitive. As much as he loves mankind, he hates sin and sinners. There is no denying this, to do so would be denying biblical doctrine. As far as me hating that sin that's in me? That is actually a good place to start, and I have no problem with hating the sinner in me. I hate the sinner in me alot. You should to, it's a catalyst for change. As far as turning people away? Truth hurts. You think they killed Jesus because what he brought was easy? NO. Why should I lighten it up, make it easier to swallow? Seems like a disservice, doesn't it? Maybe it's just me.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Lois i have been reading ur posts and I would like to make an observation... Just from reading ur last post I have noticed a trend about how u look at things biblically. They revolve around how they affect you personally. It seems that you justify ur belief b/c well you believe and thats all that matters. If somebody else doesnt believe well thats to bad for them and it doesnt affect you. Your going to heaven so o well if they dont...seems to be a trend with ur thought. (maybe im wrong but thats how it appears)You seem to be missing the whole point of Jesus's ministry and for that matter, what you as a christian are called to do. Ill redirect you to my above post on what Jesus called of us as christians to do. To spread the Word of God and to tell what Jesus did for us. Now does that mean we tell them that they will die be convicted of sinning and be sent to Hell? of course it does. But thats half the story and u seem to forget the 2nd half of the story. You urself were convicted of sin and judged to die but b/c of the Love that God had for you, you were givin a second chance. I bolded that so you would notice it. Your salvation has nothing to do with yourself. Do you realize that yet. You are saved b/c of Gods decision to give you a chance. He could have left the Law in place and you as well as everybody else would be on a plane trip to Hell. But b/c of His love we are able to find salvation.

All I deal with is the reality of what God had/has in mind, and it never included caring one little bit whenever an unbeliever denies his existence.

This quote is really disturbing and i just hope its poorly written. The reality is you have no clue what God has in mind. And im pretty disturbed that you think this has any biblical standing. To say that God doesnt care about everyone is a pretty disgusting thing to say and may have a reason why you seem to get into so many disagreements with believers and nonbelievers. You will not find any biblical backing to say that God doesnt care whether people convert or not and it woudl seem that it woudl go against the whole ministry of JesusGood luck