BTW - I think I agree with Abra on his assesment of the "spiritual putdown" nature of the thread.

The title looks to me like a patronizong cliche' when combined with the content of the OP.

But that's just my own opinion.

The title is patronizing.

Well that's certainly a matter of personal opinion.



Truly. I can't speak for other people, but from my point of view, to suggest that anyone who considers spirituality to be a real possibility as being "delusional" or "illogical" is indeed a "Putdown".

Most people would be offended if someone told them that they are delusional or illogical.

And this is especially true if that original claim is all that is being made. The original claim:



If this is all that is being claimed, then it would neither be "illogical" nor "delusional" to consider the possiblity that spirit may very well exist.

After all, there is no claim being made that it has been proven that spirit 'does not exist'.

So we could just as easily begin this thread with the statement.

The truth is, there is no proof that spirit does not exists.

And then we could start accusing people who don't consider the possibility of spirit as being "delusional" and "illogical".

In short, you can't use the fact that something hasn't been proven to start calling people delusional and illogical just because they are considering these things.

Hells bells, scientists are considering strings that vibrate in hidden metaphysical dimensions. Yet there is no proof that strings or hidden metaphysical dimensions exist.

So should we then call scientists "delusional" and "illogical"?

I don't think so.

They have reasons for considering such unproven ideas.



This is a very good point. Some people perfer to accept their own personal experiences in life as 'proof'. Experience is empirical evidence to the one who experiences it.

So, at best, all anyone can truly say is "Spirit has not been proven to me to exist".

That's really all they can say. For anyone to claim that spirit has not been proven to exist for another person is preposterous and completely illogical and delusional.

It's delusional to think that you can speak for other people. Let other people decide whether or not they feel that spirit has been proven to exist in their lives.

sure. thinking that anything or group of things as being obviously false would be irrational. to consider someone delusional does not mean to consider his dogma as being obviously false. as i defined the word it means that he believes his dogma to be true in spite of evidence that an alternative dogma likewise could be true. but it's no more an over-reaction to lump all of spirituality into a basket where one lumps all phenomena of the supernatural in which people believe than it is to lump just religious dogma or even all but one religion into such a basket. i think i'm safe in saying that you consider many of the mainstream religions to be lumped into your "obviously false" basket. how is it not overkill for you to think such as many christians for example might view by pointing to the worst atrocities commited by humans throughout history?

"What is truth?"

-Pontius Pilate

That wasn't me who brought up "delusional", it was in the original post.

I agree with Sky.

It is true that the existence of "spirit" (by my definition) cannot be proven to 'exist' by the scientific method. But you can't go around calling people "delusional" if they choose to believe in it because it has not been proven to NOT exist, "indisputably." It has also not been proven that no person whatever has found what they consider to be proof of spirit.

Because proof, after all, is a matter of being convinced that something is true.



The above statement is ridiculous. Where is the indisputable evidence to the contrary and what gives you the authority to call someone psychotic? geeeze.

Well, for one thing, that's not what I've done. I haven't pointed to the worse atrocities committed by humans throughout history to denounce the doctrines.

I've denounced the doctrines for two specific reasons:

1. It's based on the idea that mankind is responsible for having brought imperfections and death into this world and is at odds with his creator and in need of repentance.

This is a rejection based on the empirical evidence that mankind has not always been around and that death and imperfections existed prior to mankind's appearance on the planet.

2. My second reason for renouncing the doctrine is that I personally feel that the stories contradict themselves as well as contradicting the very character traits that they demand their God must possess.

So I'm basically referencing the doctrine directly without any need to address the behavior of the humans who follow the doctrine.

Contrary to popular misunderstandings I do not denounce everyone who calls themselves a "Christian". In fact, I'm actually in agreement with some Christians to a point. (Although I confess that I do not recognize Jesus as the sacrifical lamb of Yahweh).

But on moral issues I'm in complete agreement with some Christians.

In fact, many people who call themselves "Christians" are as fed up with the dogmatic churches as I am. The very term "Chruchianity" we coined by "Christians" who denounce the church. They consider themselves to be followers of "Jesus" and basically reject many of the teaching of Yahweh from the Old Testamanet. They see Jesus as being a "New Covenent" with God, and in spite of the fact that the text has Jesus saying that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law, they still accept that he has indeed 'changed' the laws. I guess they just refuse to recognize certain things from the Old Testament as ever having been "laws" in the first place.

There's always "wiggle room" for just about any interpretation a person wants to twist these stories to mean.

I personally reject the whole "fall from grace" thing to begin with. I also reject the very notion of a supposedly all-wise, all compassionate God who is appeased by blood sacrifices.

But even so I wouldn't call people who want to believe in those stories 'delusional'. However, if they start proselytizing to me that I'm disobeying God and suggesting that I'm a sinner or a heathen, then they are passing judgements on me then it's time to explain why I think the doctrine their "faith" is based on holds no water and conflicts with both, the observatinos of science, as well as with its own stories.

As we all know, those religions tend to be 'accusatory' because the doctrine itself is 'accusatory'. The doctrine demands that all men have fallen from grace and are sinners who must repent and confess that the doctrine is indeed the "word of God".

It's a very demanding religion. It basically demands that anyone who refuses to believe it is a heathen who is rejecting the God. In fact, this religion even has an "evil God" called Satan who is at war with the "Good God". So if you refuse to align yourself with the "Good God" there is nothing left to do but claim that you have aligned yourself with his worst enemy Satan!

It's not just a belief in an egotistical Godhead, but it's also a believe in an egotistical demonic demon as well.

It's places mankind as pawns in a Holy War.

It's more than just a belief in "spirituality", it's a belief in Holy War. You're either on the side of God, or you're on the side of Satan, there's nowhere else to be. It's far more than just an idea of spirituality. It's an ancient military scam to recruit "soldiers in the name of God"

The title of the thread is totally unrelated to the content of the O.P.

Truth does not hurt unless you are in a state of resisting what is. Resistance to what is is what hurts.

But that has nothing to do with the O.P.'s discussion about spirit.

That there is no scientific proof of spirit does not hurt. I certainly don't expect there to be any scientific proof of spirit.

But Creative, you are implying, it seems, that because there is no scientific proof of spirit that means you think that constitutes proof that spirit does not exist or has been proven to not exist.

Can you prove something does not exist? I don't think so. Can you conclude that you don't have proof that it exists? Sure! Does that mean it proves that it does not exist? NO NO NO.

I'm sorry if that truth hurts.

So for people who prefer believing that spirit does not exist just because they can't find any proof, well that is their business.

But for people who feel they have an understanding of spirit and believe in it, well, that's their business.

Stop resisting what is. Let people believe what they want. Some have found the proof, some have not.

Truly.

The OP starts out with a seemingless innocent statement that there simply isn't any proof that spirit exists, but then has continued on to speak about things such as "indisputable evidence to the contrary"?

What indisputable evidence to the contrary?

I'm happy for you. But I hope that you don't have the impression that others, who believe in and/or experience "spirit" in their lives need that to find their own "self worth." Its not about "self worth." Its not about finding value in others, and its not about "love."

Here is what your above post sounds like when you replace "the concept of spirit" with "God."

"I do not need God to feel good about myself or my life. I do not need God to confirm my purpose. I do not need God to find value in others. I do not need God to experience love. I do not need God for anything I can think of, including holding out some hope for a better afterlife."

Okay now replace "God" with the word "life."

If per chance, "spirit" = "life" then YES you DO need spirit. So before you proclaim you do not "need it" you might want to think about what IT might really be IF it does exist.





The above statement is just false. You can understand it once you realize what it is.

Why do people keep confusing 'delusional' with 'delusional disorder' ?



These words have particular meaning within the scope of psychiatry, and a more general meaning for the rest of us!



I've known a handful of people who were diagnosed with a disorder, but a great many people who were in some way delusional. In fact, many (not all) people who play the lottery are a bit delusional in their estimation of their odds of winning.

I always thought 'delusional' also meant 'inclined towards delusions' (in the non-psychiatric sense of the word) - so anyone who is so heavily invested in a worldview that they refuse to give fair treatment to new evidence, alternative explanations, or contrary arguments would also be 'delusional'...just not 'clinically'.

In general, in my experience of culture in the USA for the past 20 years, the phrase "the truth hurts" is often used with an arrogant, condescending, insensitive tone; and sometimes with an additional hint of mockery.

Fact is we can't handle or comprehend the truth!

That has been my experience as well.

A young monk asked the the great Shanta of the Gobi:

What is truth?

The Shanta replied,

"Truth, as we'd like to know it, does not exist. Truth exists only for those who are willing to shed their spirits and cast it into the Abyss of Rhenga."

I would like to address the concept of logic and what's "logical" when considering something as profound as the true nature of reality.

This universe exists. This we know. Yet from a purely logical point of view this would be impossible. The reason being that there would be no 'logical' way that it could have gotten started from nothing. And to assume that it has always existed is just as illogical because that doesn't help the fact that something exists and can't be said to have come from anywhere. Where did the something come from? Even if it's just a purely 'accidently' explosion. An explosion of what? Something had to exist to 'explode'.

Logic breaks down at this point. There can be no such thing as a 'logical' universe based on our ideas of logic. Thus even if we pretend to be 'logical people' we could never consummate the existence of this universe with logic.

Therefore it's just as 'illogical' to pretend that the universe is logical.

I realized this many years ago. In fact, I personally feel that this was indeed the epihpany of many mystical sages have had. They came to the realization that the universe necessarily must be 'mystical'.

It has to be. Even logic demands it. There's no getting around it. So to even pretend that this universe could be understood in its entirety via logic alone, is a fallacy.

So it's actually quite logical to conclude that the very birth and essence of this universe must necessarily trancend logic.

Therefore a belief in spirit is perfectly logical.

So it's actually more logical to believe in spirit than not.

That's my logical conclusion.

And I'm quite serious. I truly do believe that this is indeed a necessarly logical conclusion. The true essence of this universe must necessarily transcend what we consider to be "logical".

I sincerely do believe this, and this is indeed a large part of why I have no problem considering the wisdom of some spiritual beliefs.

Moreover in reqard to the following:



I know of no one who has ever given logical grounds that contradict my spiritual beliefs.

depends on the topic. if we're refering to the big bang there is vast indesputable evidence to support the theory. indisputable evindence does not mean evidence that proves the theory. the evidence is indesputable because one cannot dispute that the evidence exists. so when one believes that there is an intelligent designer as fact for example and ignores the indesputable evidence that supports the theory of the big bang they would merit a diagnosis of delusional as psychiatry defines the word.

A delusion is only a delusion to the person not having it. Too a "delusional" person it is very real. Once you act on a delusion it becomes a reality.

Perhaps they have a 'theory' of an intelligent designer that doesn't conflict with the Big Bang.

Then what?