The truth is, there is no proof that spirit exists.

I feel that many of the non-spiritual people here have a hard time explaining their views, not so much because they are unable, but moreso because the very content of their reasoning and the logical content of the demonstration hurts other people's feelings. That alone can cause those with their feelings hurt to assume ill intent. That is wrong to assume. There is no reason to assume that because one gives logical grounds which happen to contradict another's beliefs that it is done with ill intent. Some people think logically.

With religions having such a profound influence in human history, I suppose some people have a hard time digesting the fact that the concept of spirit is just that, and has not been proven to exist anywhere other than one's mind. Others may claim that it is hateful to demonstrate why and how that is the case. I do not find truth value to be hateful, I find it to be a useful and a much more meaningful approach for weeding out the possibility to be tricked into believing something which may not be completely correct or possibly even blatently false. I would much rather know that a belief which I held has logical flaws and/or is just plain false than to continue believing it.

I do not find my own personal self-worth in my belief system, I do not need the concept of spirit to feel good about myself or my life. I do not need the concept of spirit to confirm my purpose. I do not need the concept of spirit to find value in others. I do not need the concept of spirit to experience love. I do not need the concept of spirit for anything I can think of, including holding out some hope for a better afterlife. Therefore, I find much more worth in a demonstrable and accurate representation of reality.

It is not that I have ruled out the concept or have determined it to be false. It is that I have come to realize that if it is true, there is no way to know what it entails, therefore it would be delusional to attempt to build an entire belief system and/or knowledge base around that which cannot be known.

I agree that the truth hurts


When I found out about the existence of Draconians I felt very hurt and betrayed.

You have a conflicting statement there...
You claim to not have ruled it out or determined it to be false, yet you make a judgement on it saying there would be no way to know what it entails if it were true. If it were proven to you, wouldn't that give you the knowledge to understand it?
You then show ill-intent by implying anyone who does believe in spirit is "delusional" for trying to learn more about it.

Stop bringing me into it dammit...lol



When people take things personally they get their feelings hurt.

I am so forthright bold and forward that I have to try not to hurt peoples feelings by what I say.

If you get hurt by others it is usually, not always but usually some issue you have inside of you.

Sometimes people are just mean and hurtful and in those cases it is best to leave them alone.

I find very few on here have a hard time explaining their views on anything..seems most of the threads are a constant debate, attempts to change the other persons mind. Which is why I rarely post in ANY thread that becomes serious...I use to, but I won't argue or defend how I feel.

It matters not of proof...each of us has the choice to do, feel, believe in whatever resonates with us. That is the beautiful thing about each of us and our individuality. We all have different thoughts, beliefs, feelings on such things as "spirit" because we each have different life experiences. It is our experiences that build our belief system. We all get to find our own path and choose what works for us. Why is it so important to attempt to talk some one out of that belief and into your own, or want disprove to one something that may be important to them. Why would it even matter...

That only conflicts if there is a way to know.



Let's define delusion.



That is the definition I am using. Seeing how spirit has not been proven to exist, there is no evidence which would necessarily prove it, otherwise it would have been proven already and this discussion would not be necessary or applicable.

How does my recognizing these things equate to my showing ill-intent? In this case, my showing the facts and definitions for what they are would need to equate to ill intent for your claim about that to be true. As I already wrote, fact and truth do not equate to nor necessarily imply ill intent. In fact, one must first make a personal judgment about another in order to apply that label.

ladylid wrote:



I find sound reason and intelligence to be beautiful. I also find my acceptance of others' beliefs - no matter if different - to be beautiful, in most cases. I do not find that working with false beliefs really works for anyone. I find that it necessarily de-values humans for what they are in and of themselves. The idea that just because a belief makes one feel good does not make it good, especially if it is based upon known falseness.



That would all depend upon who and what the beliefs are.

I know of no one who has ever shown valid logical arguments that contradict any of my spiritual beliefs.

However, I do know some people who have convinced themselves of this. But they are grossly mistaken in thier own unwarranted assumptions and false conclusions.



It's nice to know that you're content with your own philosophy.

However, many people are probably not concerned with what spirit entails. That's not important to the goals or purpose of spirituality. Spirit isn't something that you need to understand objectively. Spirit is a subjective experience, and there are spiritual practices of rituals and psychic mediation that can indeed put people intuitively and psychically in touch with spirit directly. So those people can indeed have the own personal experience with spirit.

The idea of 'proving' spirit objectively is truly an unimportant idea. It's the antithesis of spirit. So any need to prove spirit is already an anti-spiritual idea.



What is based on known falseness?

In the OP you said, "The truth is, there is no proof that spirit exists."

But now you're saying, "based upon known falseness"

That was quick. You went from "no proof" in the OP, to "known falseness", a just a few posts.

So now your claiming that spirit is "known" to be false?

Is this going to be another "Spiritual Putdown Thread?"

not in the least contradicting and you just made the op's point for him. the truth is that psychiatry defines delusional as a diagnosis for one who believes and holds firmly to a concept in spite of eveidence that supports an alternative concept. when one believes in god he does, as you say, try to learn more about genesis but he typically chooses not to learn about other concepts about the origins of the universe such as the big bang theory. a theoretical physicist doesn't rule genesis to be false or ruled genesis out as a possibility, he simply ponders a more feasable explanation for how the universe began. at least as his education has led him to think. you consider it ill entended when all the op did was point out the truth about what delusional actually means as psychology defines the word. as the thread title states, "the truth hurts".

Yes, the truth hurts. Like getting a vaccination (okay bad example for some, but just play along).

The vaccine only hurts for a minute. The disease it prevents (living a lie) is much worse in the long run.

However, just because the OP does not believe Spirit exists, does not mean it is not true.

but first,, to distinquish TRUTH from OPINION is the biggest obstacle

I agree. The inexistence of the disbelief that something does not exist, does not validate or invalidate the non-existence or the possible non-existence of the truth, whether it exists or it does not, believe it or not.

JFC...

Where did I ever state that I was close-minded to other beliefs?
If "delusional" is defined by phychiatry, why should I believe phychiatry? Isn't that "delusional" itself as there is no proof in phychiatry, only theories? Same could be said for the "big bang" theory and a whole sh1tload of other theories.

jrbogie said:
"a theoretical physicist doesn't rule genesis to be false or ruled genesis out as a possibility, he simply ponders a more feasable explanation for how the universe began."
Sure, a physicist doesn't rule it out, but so many people do, and then label it as "delusional". Is said physicist "delusional" for not denouncing genesis?
Is it "delusional" to believe that BOTH are feasible? (creation AND big bang?)
Is it "delusional" to believe that matter formed from nothingness?
Is it "delusional" to accept the possibility that spirit is not detectable by our current technology?
Is it "delusional" to believe that our physical form is made up of more "nothingness" than physical matter?

Probrably the only time I would ever call someone "delusional" is when they claim to know my thoughts, beliefs and feelings. Even then, I would probrably just call then nucking futz!

Ever been told you have a subtle resemblance to nicolas cage?

Since the thread I was going to put this in is gone.

Spirit exists...

Quantum – What we are measuring right now.

Quantum link – something that is happening now within the ‘quantum’ that is a direct result of an event before the now.

Quantum event – an event that has happened or will happen that has left ‘links’ within the quantum and either has changed it or will change it based on measurements.

Measure the quantum of reality-as-we-know-it from ancient events to now.

When you measure reality as a quantum you find sub-quantum events that show links between relativistic reality and that of spirit.

The advent of the birth of a human child called Jesus of Nazareth is on example of a quantum event on the spiritual level that effected the relativistic reality… and still does effect that reality.

Spirit can be subjected to QM analysis… If you overlay the formula with the right terrain.

The world of reality as we know it is subject to cycles and patterns… Should the spiritual quantum be any different? If the spiritual quantum runs parallel that of reality its cycles would follow or duplicate the cycles within reality.

The very fact you read this is a quantum event (albeit a rather small one). If in so reading you think ‘what a nut’… oh well, the footprint left behind by the event is one you will cover or fill or ignore but it will still be there it simply did not effect your ‘now’.

But every event leaves a footprint of some kind that can be measured if one puts enough thought into it.

I do believe one might expect a cold response if one did this… The results would not be well received by either the science community or the religious.

Thanks to everyone so far. This looks like themakings of a great thread!



I need to assess one particular set of remarks before it gets carried away.



1.)There has been no "spiritual putdown thread", so this cannot possibly be another.

2.)The partial quote you used did not apply to every belief possible, and was not necessarily addressing all belief in spirit. So, no, I did not go from "no proof" to "known falseness" as you suggest. That particular sentence was referring to *any* belief which is based upon known falseness. It was making the point that just because a belief makes one feel good does not make it good.

So please, keep up with the content of what is written, and these confusions will be lessened.

That final sentence is the only thing I really disagree with.

Although "...has not been proven to exist anywhere other than one's mind.." is a little slippery, I can let that one go.

But I will say that it is in fact, possible to know the existence of spirit.

I know it. And I know many other's who also know it.

So my only real objection is the the statement that it "cannot be known".

The fact of the matter is that it is known.

And with all due respect for everyone's views on the matter, I think that the biggest problem is that many people disagree on exactly what it is. And that gives rise to the fuzziness of definition/concept that the logical positivists can't accept.

First off, where's the "indisputable evidence to the contrary"? I have yet to see any. All you've said is "not been proven to exist" and "no evidence which would necessarily prove it". But that's not "indisputable evidence to the contrary". By your own admission, it is not possible to produce any evidence whatsoever either way. So the label of "delusion" cannot be applied.

Secondly, your definition states "false psychotic belief regarding the self". Now unless you can show both "psychosis" and "false belief", then the term "delusion" does not apply at all, by your definition.

Third, "spirit has not been proven to exist" is, quite simply, false. It has been proven to many people. It just has not been proven to you and others of the logical positivist persuasion.

And finally, the definition states "...belief regarding the self...". Now as far as I'm concerned, the spirit is self, so believing one is not spirit would be the more delusional belief. But that's just my own opinion.

jr,

I can see your concern when it comes to ancient texts that are being held out to be the 'word of God'. After all, those text claim to speak for God and they also demand that God wants certain behavior from people, not the least of which include repentance and a confession that these books truly are the "word of God".

I agree that these kind of dogmatic religions that claim to "speak for God", must be questioned and seriously challenged. I also agree that these religions are in conflict with what scientific observations have revealed. These religions accuse mankind of bringing imperfection and death into the world by having refused to obey the commandments and directives of God. So they hold mankind as being in a state of defile against God and in desperate need of repentance. This whole theme conflicts with the observations that mankind wasn't always on this Earth and that death and imperfects have always existed long before mankind ever came onto the scene. This strongly suggests that these religious stories are the total fabrication of the men who wrote them.

I personally feel that there are many other self-contained reasons to reject these lengthy doctrines that claim to be the 'word of God'. For example, the "God" in these stories is appeased by blood sacrifices, yet this seems, at least to me, to fly in the face of an all-wise, and all-compassionate God. It also seems to just be a take-off from the Greek God of Zeus who was also considered to be appeased by blood sacrifices. So these kinds of fabrications are common to mythologies dreamed up by men in that region.

However, as I've said, these are lengthy doctrines that claim to speak for "God" and claim to know what God wants and commands from us. I might add that this basic folklore has also split up into many opposing religions that drastically disagree with each other on how the stories have unfolded and on precisely what they mean. Some of these religions are still stoning sinners to death just as these stories have claimed that God has commanded people to do. I just heard on NPR radio about a young woman who was stoned to death for adultery in some Arab country. This is 2010 and some people are still stoning "sinners" to death like these ancient stories have demanded that God wants us to do.

Other sects of the same basic religion claim that God sent his only begotten son to "Change the laws" but even that is not in agreement with the text of the stories that has the supposed son of God himself saying that not one jot nor one tittle shall past from law. So there are many self-contradictions within these lengthy doctrines that reveal their fallacy even without referring to outside observations of science.

However, that is only one view of 'spirituality' that was born out of the Middle East and Mediterranean region. There are vastly different ideas of "God" or spirit that do not claim to "speak" for God. They do not contain lengthy doctrines that claim to be the "Word of God". They also view "spirit" in a totally different way. They don't see spirit as being an egotistical godhead. Instead they see spirit in everything. They view the entirety of existence as being the essence of spirit.

It would a true shame to flush these types of spiritual philosophies down the drain just because of poorly written and obviously false mythologies of angry egotistical Gods who are appeased by blood sacrifices and lust to have sinners and heathens stoned to death.

So to just lump all of spirituality into one basket, then point to the worst dogmatic mythologies you can find as being obviously false, seems like overkill to me. It's just an over-reaction to the worse of the worst spiritual mythologies as far as I can see.

don't know. i never suggested that you were closed minded. i referred to one who might meet psychiatry's definition of "delusional" which you were the one to bring up in this thread.



of course. doubt that anybody is asking you to believe in psychiatry or anything else. you brought up the word "delusional" so now we're discussing the meaning of the word of which i am sure there are many. when i use the word, i try to used it as psychiatry defines it.



everybody does not use the word "delusional" properly i agree. because so many people rule out genesis absolutely means that they are themselves delusional as i see it. an atheist who claims it to be fact that god does not exist is every bit as delusional as the faithful who claims it to be fact that god does exist. the religous and spiritual folks don't have a monopoly on delusional thought. we all have our delusions.



no, he's not in the least delusional for not denouncing genesis. many theoretical physicists have never read genesis as they were born and raised in non christian countries. those physicists may not even be familiar with what genesis says much less would they denounce it. but a physicist would never "believe that both are feasable". a good scientist doesn't "believe" anything. as i said earlier, to believe in a concept means to believe that all other concepts are impossible. instead of "believing" that both are feasable he considers one to be highly feasable and the other to be less feasable or even barely feasable. he likely is not even aware of many options that he doesn't know that people offer as how the universe began. but he doesn't have time to visit every claim. he dedicates his work to where he thinks it's likely he'll find feasable answers.



yes. to "believe" such would be delusional. no scientist believes in a theory. indeed, they constantly keep testing the theory to see if they can prove it to be falible.



no. to accept that spirit is not detectable by our current technology would be a highly rational acceptence. i do not think i'm delusional that i accept that no current technology can detect spirits. to believe that science had the technology to detect spiritual phenomena would be delusional though.



yes, as the definition of psychiatry suggest, to believe such without evidence in spite of evidence to suggest otherwise is delusional.



i agree. that is one of many times that i would call someone delusional. if you'd never use the word in any other case then you simply would not always use the word as a psychiatrist would as i understand the definition.