If you do, make sure they also transplant the pineal gland. They say that is the seat of the soul.

Its like little kids playing at knowledge.

If they could do the surgery successfully? Yes. Your mind is in your brain. If the brain is alive, so is your mind. And WTF are you talking about your pineal gland? People have their pineal gland removed and they are just fine. It's just a gland, it's not magic. The worst that would happen to you is you would have a hard time sleeping due to lack of melatonin.

Interesting fact: Atheists often feel the need to prove that they are more intelligent than those who believe in a religion, so they will often mock and ridicule the intelligence of religious people.

Atheism: A religion people join to appear smarter.

Weren't we unbelievers too ,at one time?

The more science and psychology discovers about the brain the more ridiculous the ideas people have to make up to try and make the idea of 'the soul' fit in

It's funny when people claim to be psychological experts,cause in court when it comes down to psychological analisis from the 2 opposing sides one of them is not going to be believed by the jury.So are they really experts or just really good at using psyhcology to fool people into believing them?

Theism:the belief of "when in doubt,God did it."

That rights, science is backing god, and anything paranormal, or supernatural into a smaller and smaller corner. Eventually there will be no more mysteries for these beliefs to hide in. Somehow I think people will still believe them . . . the skeptical thread is proof of that. You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not arrive at through reason.

That is a major point that can help explain why some may think that conspiracy theorists tend to delude themselves and how it can become a psychological disorder.

We learn to process incoming information quickly by utilizing several tools in our mental toolbox. These become shortcuts that help us analyze and respond to our environment.

In effect we develop patterns in our thought process. Those patterns tend to build upon the past beliefs we have developed from previous cognition.

People who become extemists tend to allow the same prosessing paths to continue until it rules how they develope opinions, ideas, and ultimately their behavior.

This is why some poeple who develop extreme ways of thinking are thought to have a disorder. In such cases the disorder simply refers to the inability of a person to process inforamtion that does not equate to thier previously held opinions (beliefs).

Equating the unexplained with powers beyond our control or even our understanding is not in itself a disorder thus, attributing the unexplained to a god is not a disorder. However, disregarding information when it begins to infringe on previous beliefs can become a delusional disorder. The person must delude themselves in order to continue with their pattern of thought which supports their beliefs.

When such an individual continues to gain alies to their way of thinking, rather than to accept or even to consider other information, then that person is trying to delude others, also a way to support their own continued delusions.

That's why the quote "Theism:the belief of "when in doubt,God did it" is appropoe to the situation. When in doubt, when you can't explaine, and when you refuse to consider new information opposing the current opinion, god did it OR THEY did it.

If God exist, then God did do it. Big Bang? God did it. Evolution? God set it in place. If God exists, every natural process would be the creation of God. Theist scientists have spent the past 2000 years not saying "God did it" and sticking their thumbs up their figurative butts as so many atheists seem to think. Theist scientists have said "How did God do it?" and done their research. Galileo didn't just say "God did it", he proved that the Sun was the center of our solar system. Louis Pasteur didn't look at disease and say "God did it", he said "How is this happening?". Was Issac Newton's theory of gravity "God does it?" Just because "God did it", that doesn't mean that men can't know how God did it.

God as nature = god as a natural process = not god.

I'm confused. Do you think that I believe in "God as nature"? I believe in God as the creator of the natural world, not a part of nature.

A thing is the characteristics that make it what it is, in every case the characteristics of a thing are dictated by its functions/actions. (I am sure others can explain philosophical identity better than I)

If the actions of god are natural, and nothing else, then god is nature.

Without evidence of god that is distinct to only god, then god cannot be reasonably said to exist, it is just as accurate to not mention god and only detail the natural interactions. Occums razor.

Basically the whole everything is the result of god takes the characteristics of everything and attributes it to god, which removes any distinction one can make between everything and god, which makes god everything, but but but . . . nature is everything. God as nature.

Nature does not have non-natural characteristics there for god is not supernatural in this description, there for god is not the god of theism, but pantheism which I argue is no god at all.

Conclusion:
Philosophical Materialism has no need to add a redundant layer which cannot add value to the explanation.
Spiritualism adds just this layer, but can say nothing as to why, and no useful knowledge is gained.

This is really better in the bait thread on Materialism disorder than here, but heck I was just responding.

Your whole argument if fallacious. In order for God to be the prime mover, God must have created the physical universe. If God created the physical universe, then God cannot be the physical universe.

You said "If the actions of god are natural, and nothing else, then god is nature.", who says that God's actions are only natural? Even if God's actions are only natural (which they aren't, but I'm humoring you), then you have committed the "False Dilemma" fallacy. Just because all of God's actions to this point were natural, that doesn't mean that God is incapable of supernatural activities. The fact that God created the universe, means that God is not like the universe and is therefore Himself supernatural.

As for "but . . . nature is everything", another laughable statement. You are making what is called a gratuitous assertion. You have discounted the possiblity of the supernatural without batting an eye. The problem with that is that nothing can be more non-scientific.

What is science? According to Dictionary.com, Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

By definition, science can make no claims to knowledge of the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, because science only applies to the "physical or material world".

So what you posted is just your opinion and a rather myopic one.

Please explain the spiritual definition for knowledge.
If you could also explain how one goes about gaining such knowledge.

It's different for every person, which is why there are thousands of religions. There is no hard and fast way to explore the supernatural.

So there is no standard by which spiritual knowledge is gained?

How do you know its knowledge at all if no standards exist?

Perhaps there is no way at all, perhaps there is no supernatural at all?

Faith indeed.

I think this clearly illustrates the VAST differences in all other philosophies compared to Philosophical Materialism.

It works, standard exist, knowledge is built and demonstrated. When someone wants to accomplish something they use Materialism and never think twice.

To call something spiritual knowledge requires loosing the definition of knowledge into uselessness.

To call something a scientific fact requires loosing the definition of fact also.

But ignoring that, is it really "loosing the definition of knowledge into uselessness" to say "Soandso has a deep knowledge of spirituality"? I think the term that is key here isn't knowledge, but "spirituality". People know that there are no hard and fast rules or beliefs in spirituality. Spirituality is an attempt to explore the non-physical with nothing but your own mind.

Does the statement of "I have personal knowledge that the Nazis were wrong" also "loosing the definition of knowledge into uselessness"? Any "knowledge" of "wrong" is a value judgment. There is no way to scientifically prove that the Nazis were wrong; that what they did was evil. This whole line of argument is just another attempt to prove the intellectual superiority of atheists over theists.

Honestly, I don't see why atheist's care about the religious beliefs of other people. You think faith is unscientific, I agree. Rejection of the supernatural because it can't be tested by the scientific method is also unscientific. It's a stalemate.

Psychology is pseudo science. It does not even touch the surface of what it means to be a conscious intelligent human being.

You psychologists and scientists think you are so smart. You don't know squat. You are trapped in your minds.

There are specific ways to gain spiritual knowledge. You will never discover them. That is why the call it the occult.