You should always take a stance based on verifiable facts not hunches or beliefs. That's how religion is born. I have seen no proof a Supreme being or the afterlife do not exist. I have seen hints that at least the Supreme being may exist IF Quantum Mechanics is correct. But even if it is correct that in no way validates any of the religions. If you aren't sure of what I am referring to, look up the Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics. If you haven't read up on this you are in for quite the mind bending treat. Essentially QM has found that everything exists as a possibility until observed by consciousness. Experiments have born this out so far. Now if you extrapolate all the way to the beginning it implies that in order for the universe to being to exist there had to be a conscious being present to observe it to make it real and kick off the whole thing. Call it whatever you like. But in the end we don't know either way. I don't like to assume I know something. I need things proven to me before I will accept it as real and not a good unverifiable theory. Both Atheists and Theists claim knowledge when they really don't have knowledge. All they have is belief based on faith. This is why I view Atheism as just another religion. It's just based on materialism instead of spiritualism.

@Norman347
"I have seen no proof a Supreme being or the afterlife do not exist."

Hey you know what? I have seen no proof that Star farting Goblins don't exist either, but to tell the truth I don't believe they exist either.
The default position in logic for something that refuses or cannot prove it's existence is to assume it does NOT exist, until such time as evidence emerges that it does.

I can make a list of 100,000 things that have no proof of their non existence and all of them probably do not exist, what makes god so special that you need proof of his not being there when presumably without any proof whatsoever you don't believe in the existence of Unicorns, Pixies, Cthulhu, Daleks or Noddy and Big Ears?

@LenHazell53 Perhaps this is a good example”Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe”* St. Augustine

The post reminds me of Karen Armstrong. I read her looong "History of God" book but now it seems she has not let go of religion. It's hard to determine. What do you know of her?

@JackPedigo Nothing at all...I’ve never heard of her.

You can't really be both. You are either a Theist, you believe in God and all that goes with that, an Atheist, convincd there's no such thing, or an Agnostic, you see no convincing proof either way and feel you really can't know and leave it at that. If you are open to the possibility then you aren't an Atheist. You are an Agnostic. Being a freethinker doesn't mean words mean whatever you want them to mean.

@Norman347 I beg to disagree with you, I have the prerogative to call myself what I want, and my preferred term is freethinker. I actually don’t like or feel the need to use labels to describe people, but you seem to be the one who is confused about what you believe you are, not me. You are the one using terms and labels to describe that you went from believer to atheist and then you realised that that was just a rebellion against the nuns, so in fact you are not actually an atheist now, but an agnostic. I have never had such difficulty in knowing that I don’t believe that there is a god, I at no time ever believed that there is a god. My mind is not closed because I am prepared to be open to any evidence if ever it is shown to me, proving the existence of god, so in that respect I’m agnostic . At present as there is no evidence that there is a god, that lack of evidence prevents me from believing in god, therefore, in that respect I’m atheist. Please don’t try to tell other people that they are wrong or what they are, my understanding of the English language and the meaning and etymology of words is extensive, and I know exactly how and when to use the words I use. You ask what our personal journey to what we believe is...well mine started by not being indoctrinated in the first place, but given the tools and encouragement to read, enquire and analyse all doctrines and philosophies, and then to decide for myself whether I believed in a god or gods. That is what a freethinker does, and it’s what my father and grandfather were, as am I.

@Marionville She was onn NPR and had an interesting story. One would have thought she would have left religion a long time ago. She considers herself sort of a Christian/Jewish/Muslim. [en.wikipedia.org]

@JackPedigo I have read a couple of her books several years ago and thought she was a pretty good commentator but then heard her speak and she came across as an arrogant bombast!

The content I thought was quite good, but certainly not bringing anything new to the table.

Not really. Spirit means not of this world. I am not trying to play with the word. Spiritual is pretty clear. Not of the physical world.. So no you can't prove it exists nor can you prove it doesn't exist. These things must be taken on faith since there is no real way to prove their existence.

It's non-physical. How do you test for it? Science is limited to the physical world. Same reason why you can't disprove the existence of anything else that isn't supposed to reside withing our physical universe.

the real question is why is it necessary to disprove the spiritual? the onus is on the believer to prove the object of belief, not the other way around.

g

@Norman347 I dunno. I do stuff all the time, as well as my kids, mom, and others I grew up with in Haiti, such as we used ESP to communicate as missionary kids growing up on a Haiti mission, since there were no telephone lines on the mission back in the 1950s and 60s, and very few in Haiti even now.

Strangely, none of us considered this to be "spiritual" or "woo" or anything but normal.

When my parents were elderly and in fragile health, we had no phone on the farm, so whenever my mom needed me, she'd just "think" to me, and I'd get the message as clearly as a telephone call. My daughter can do the same.

Even now, I ride all my horses without a saddle or bridle, drive the horse cart without using the lines, using just my mind to guide them, like the horses in Avatar.

I also teleported regularly because my old car didn't even have a working speedometer, so I could schlep on over to Cincinnati in 40 minutes, as opposed to the usual four hours driving time from our farm near Morehead, KY, or zip over to Louisville, a three-hour trip, in 20 minutes.

My daughter did the same and both of us were annoyed when we later got better cars and once we could "see" how fast we were going, our logic got in the way, like the Loony Tune cartoon characters that keep running in the air past the edge of cliffs, and don't fall until they notice it.

@Norman347 Proving or disproving spirituality is about as useless as trying to prove that someone loves you.

@Norman347, @DenoPenno I don't understand why anyone would think something that is non-physical could not be demonstrated, or why one cannot prove love. Love certainly can be proven if we define our terms, and non-physical REAL things could certainly be demonstrated if they have any effect at all in the physical universe (and non-physical claims are FILLED with auxiliary claims about how they affect the physical world). If such things were real, proving them is a piece of cake. (The only reason people SAY it is impossible to prove the spiritual is because they know the spiritual isn't real, and that you cannot prove unreal things.)

@greyeyed123 The only reason people SAY it is impossible to prove the spiritual is because they know the spiritual ISN'T REAL, and that you cannot prove unreal things.

@DenoPenno If it is a real aspect of life how is it pointless? If it is real you should want to know. Your logic doesn't flow. What does how someone feel about you have anything to do with whether or not we have a spiritual side? Please explain that logic.

@DenoPenno Wrong. The only people who say it's impossible to prove or disprove tlanything spiritual are those familiar what what proof is. Please explain to me how you would prove or disprove anything spiritual. I am dying to hear this.

@Norman347 It depends on what the claim is, but I can think of many ways if the spiritual claim was actually real. (Moreover, claiming something can never be demonstrated because you cannot think of a way to demonstrate it is an argument from ignorance fallacy.)

One way would be for the spiritual realm or being to directly communicate with everyone, leaving only the same doubt as one would have with their five senses. (If the claim was such that such a being or realm would be able or inclined to do such a thing.)

Another might be to test the knowledge gained from the alleged spiritual realm and its accuracy. If an Egyptian tomb was opened, say, in 2005, and it was explained on a wall in English (or any other modern language) the date and time of the tomb's opening, as well as the fact that the Higgs Boson would be discovered on July 4, 2012 at 125-127 GeVc², and was associated with specific spiritual beliefs or rituals that could be replicated and tested further...and passed the further testing...that would be compelling evidence.

If the claim was that believing certain things and performing certain rituals would make you objectively happier, healthier, smarter, live longer, and able to move objects up to the size of a car with your mind, we could test for that. And if those claims were true, we could determine that.

If the claim was that we could visit the spiritual realm (through astral projection) at will and pass secret messages to each other, then return to demonstrate such communication, we could test for that.

The only problem is that whenever spiritual claims start to sound impressive by trespassing into the falsifiable, then suggesting a test suddenly makes the claimant rearrange the elements of the claim to make it UNFALSIFIABLE once again. This is the hallmark of a delusional belief.

(Some cussing in the video. If that offends anyone, skip.)