Instigator / Pro
4
1500
rating
2
debates
75.0%
won
Topic
#5572
We are not humans, we are spiritual beings
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1485
rating
18
debates
41.67%
won
Description
Are we humans or spiritual beings? Soon we are born, we are conditioned by first our parents giving us names to match what they think out temperament was, or to name us after our grandparents or ancestors. Thereafter, we go through a rigorous education system to ensure we fit in the society per the norms of the community. Each generations appears to have a different set of rules. Moreover, each being seeks for that which is higher than themselves hence the thriving success of religion market the fulfil humans connection with the spirit.
Round 1
Pro
#1
For people are spiritual beings having human experience with following points
- Beings are born without a name, which we are given by birth parents or the organization that be during birth.
- When we die we separate the spirit from the human body, the very reason we refer to a dead body as "the body of" meaning the spirit in the body is more spiritual
- Telepathy where you thing of a person the the person calls or contacts you right at the time you think of them. Or instance where a mother senses the child's need and meets the need.
Conclusion: people are more than the body that houses their spirits hence people are human beings having a human experience that occurs between birth and death.
Con
#2
“We are not humans, we are spiritual beings"
First of all, science would disagree with the first part of this quote; unless you believe we live in a trance, or we are angels or animals, then yes, we are most definitely of the human species.
Second, there is no reason why we can’t both be human and spiritual. They are not mutually exclusive. Of course, we can’t be both human and angelic, but this was never your argument to begin with, your argument is merely that:
“People are spiritual beings having human experience[s]"
Whereas I stated that we can be both human and spiritual, but not angelic. So broadly speaking, we agree on that.
“People are more than the body that houses their spirits"
This is where we disagree. I believe that people are messengers of god, and therefore are spiritual, but scientifically speaking, we are still human. One would derive from this quote, that you think we aren’t human and are actually angelic? Correct me if I’m wrong.
“People are human beings having a human experience that occurs between birth and death."
But then you contradicted yourself here by saying that we actually are human beings, but then you contradicted yourself again by saying that we’re merely “having a human experience”.
One last thing:
"Or instance where a mother senses the child's need and meets the need."
A mother sensing the need of her child is not a spiritual gift from god. It is simply being a good parent and having good intuition.
Your argument as a whole is very messy. Please clarify your viewpoint so that I can give a fair response instead of rebutting yours.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Appreciate my opponent’s comments and would like to make a correction to my round 1 conclusion that should have stated “people are spiritual beings having a human experience that occurs between birth and death.”
The argument is people are not humans there are spiritual beings, therefore arguments for people are both spiritual and human beings, will not apply in this debate. I would call to strikethrough arguments for people being both spiritual and human. I argue that people are spiritual beings.
This is where we disagree. I believe that people are messengers of god, and therefore are spiritual, but scientifically speaking, we are still human. One would derive from this quote, that you think we aren’t human and are actually angelic? Correct me if I’m wrong.
In response to your statement above, people are spiritual beings supported by mythical stories of creation and scriptures, for instance the Bible: Genesis1:27 states, people are created in the image of a spiritual being who created them male and female. Traditional legends and universe creation stories imply people are spiritual plus, the universe was in existence for a long time than stipulated by current science and much more. Following which, I disagree with science that contradicts the creation stories and argues that the universe is ~4.6billion years old, formed from mixture of dust and gases while people evolved resulting to current humans.
A mother sensing the need of her child is not a spiritual gift from god. It is simply being a good parent and having good intuition.
You agree that parents have good intuition which is a spiritual attribute more than it is human. Like telepathy, intuition, instinct among others are abilities to understand something immediately without need of logical human reasoning.
Further, studies done on near death experiences NDE, show that the patterns are similar in that all reported the spirit living the human body, and the differences are in the story of the experience in referendum (Hashemi & et al 2023).
First of all, science would disagree with the first part of this quote;
Moreover, (Long 2014) research "near death experiences evidence for their reality" concludes that the NDE are medically inexplicable yet very real.
In conclusion, people are spiritual beings having human experiences and people are not humans.
Reference materials to support my arguments for people are spiritual beings having human experience and not humans:
- The Bible
- Traditional universe creation stories (Aztech creation myths, Chinese, Kikuyu, Egyptian, Cherokee Native Indian etc)
- Amirhossein Hashemi , Ali Akbar Oroojan , Maryam Rassouli andHadis Ashrafizadeh, 2023, " Explanation of near-death experiences: a systematic analysis of case reports and qualitative research" PubMed central, Fortier
- Jeffrey Long, MD 2014. Near-Death Experiences Evidence for their reality" PubMed
Con
#4
To best examine this argument, and to best rebut it, I will put it into three pillars: scientific, philosophical, and logical viewpoints. (As well as a few additional counterpoints at the end.)
Scientific Perspective:
Your argument relies heavily on religious texts, myths, and personal experiences, which are not empirically verifiable. Science depends on observable and testable phenomena, and the spiritual experiences described cannot be tested or measured using such methods. Also, your argument dismisses the scientific understanding of human evolution and the age of the universe. Extensive evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, including paleontology, genetics, and astrophysics, supports the theory that humans evolved from earlier life forms over millions of years. I am jewish and this aligns with my values. See, when God created the world, he created it in 7 days, the reason it took 7 whole days, and I know this sounds crazy, was that it didn’t, and this is unfortunately a huge missed point: it wasn't actually 7 days; rather each day was an unspecified amount of time, which, in theory, could be millions of years: and this allows for the notions of dinosaurs and evolution both to be true. I understand that you, as a christian, might feel differently; and that is fine. But I’d like to not involve religion in this and stick to the specific debate topic.
Logical Perspective:
Your argument uses traditional myths and legends to support its claims. Just because a belief is old, traditional, or heretic doesn't make it necessarily true or false. Citing religious texts or figures as authoritative sources doesn't provide objective evidence for the argument, as we will inevitably diverge there anyway. The conclusion that people are spiritual beings does not logically follow from the premises either, as even if near-death experiences are real and angelic intuition does exist, this does not necessarily mean that people are purely spiritual beings.
Philosophical Perspective: Your argument assumes a physicalist view (everything about the mind can be explained by physical processes in the brain). My argument assumes a dualistic view (that mind and body are separate). So, yes this debate is about “Are we spiritual or human?”, but it’s even more so that you believe: “we are spiritual (even though we feel human)”, while I believe “we are actually living a human life, yet we also have spirits from God” In other words, you are a physicalist and I am a dualist.
My best proof for my argument of dualism would be the famous line by Descartes: “I think, therefore I am.” If I am thinking consciously, then I am certainly having a human experience.
Specific Counterpoints:
- Near-death experiences and intuition can be interpreted in multiple ways. They don't necessarily imply a spiritual realm; they could be explained by brain activity, or other psychological processes, or even physiological factors, such as neurochemical processes in a dying brain or lack of oxygen.
- Intuition is a cognitive process where the brain quickly processes information based on prior experiences and knowledge, often subconsciously. It doesn’t necessarily indicate a spiritual source.
- Mythical Stories and Scriptures: These are cultural and religious narratives that serve many purposes, including explaining the unknown, moral instruction, and community cohesion. BUT, they reflect human creativity and the quest for meaning, rather than empirical truth.
Conclusion:
While the argument that people are spiritual beings having a human experience can be meaningful and valuable from a cultural, religious, or personal perspective, it lacks the empirical evidence and logical consistency required to be considered a universally valid argument in all scientific, philosophical, and logical contexts.
Round 3
Pro
#5
We are not humans, we are spiritual beings
The argument motion is people are spiritual and not humans. Your argument for duality, stating people are both spiritual and human, do not applyin this motion. Despite you mentioning that my arguments are heavily based on religion, you did not mention my arguments based on scientific research showing that people are indeed spiritual. The dead people's spirits continues to live on long after their bodies have rotted and turned into dust in the graves. Following your argument structure, I will address four pillars in support of people are spiritual beings namely science, logical, spiritual/religious and philosophical perspective.
Scientific perspective: the scientific aspect of myarguments was support by research done on near death experience and furtherprovide couple of reference among others namely (Hashemi 2023) and (Long MD,2014) PubMed research papers. These articles meet main stream of science methodology. Meanwhile, peoplebeing spiritual could be a new concept in a world where some support people are humans while others support people are both spiritual and humans may not be received well, does not mean it is not true. Similarly, I argue that even though people may not support a motion, the motion may be the truth of tomorrow just like scientist of past eg. Galileo [1564-1642) who introduced the idea that, the world went around the sun and the earth was round, to apopulation that believed the world was the center of planetary universe and theworld was flat. We also know some scientists like freud's theories do not follow current main stream science hence to pseudoscience. Regardlesswhether science can proof it or not, appears like many sciences are not falsifiable e.g. like neuroscience, study consciousness or UFOs or E.T.
Spiritual/religious perspective:
Citingreligious texts or figures as authoritative sources doesn't provide objectiveevidence for the argument
I disagree with your statement below as religious is a believe in a religion which is the worship of a superpower namely God or gods. Scriptures is sacred writings which in my opinion include the Bible, The Torah, the Quran, Mantras etc among other inspired spiritual writings. In disregard of whateverreligion one may believe in, there is only one underlying factor that peopleare spiritual beings. Where there is smoke there is fire thus mythical stories came before written word and since they were accepted by peoples ancestors then, goes to say they have elements of truth. Further, they all are in agreement that people are spiritual beings despite the difference in theirnarrative. None of the mythical or scriptural stories state people evolved from apes through an evolution process.
Logical perspective:
Logics dictates that I look at the argument in itsentirety from science, religious, to any other aspect that would support themotion people are spiritual.
even if near-death experiencesare real and angelic intuition does exist, this does notnecessarily mean that people are purely spiritual beings.
You do agree that near death experiences are real, people are spiritual beings andfor the sake of this argument it means that people are purely spiritual beings using the bodies to have a human experience. When people eat food, they use utensils to eat, however we cannot say the food and utensils are the same thing or are dual. Similarly, Same way people are spiritual beings who use earthly bodies [utensils] to have a human experiences [eat].
Philosophical perspective:The spiritual beings thinks, the spiritual beings is I AM and people arespiritual beings not humans. Philosophers appear to refer to the spiritualbeing mode of operations as soul or mind.
My argument assumes a dualistic view(that mind and body are separate)
If mind refers to spirit, then you agreethat people are spiritual. People are not the body, rather people are spiritualbeings using the body to have a human experience.
Counter points:
- Your arguments under scientific perspective werebased on defending the Jewish creations story more than rebutting the arguments motion. Appearslike the arguments was defending the biblical story of creations as a Jew vs Christians. Near death experiences science agreesthat the brains is not thought and spiritual element is true though inexplicable.
- Your logical perspective arguments looks contradictory as you admit that people are spiritual beings but have not argued against the motion it its entirely.
- Your definition of intuition doesnot rule out that intuition comes from a spiritual source, thus telepathy amongothers abilities termed as super powers or genius are indication ofa spiritual source
- Your philosophical perspective arguments appear to introduce a new debate physicality vs dualist yet the debate is people are spiritual beings not humans vs people are humans not spiritual beings. Regardless, you appear to agree people are spiritual beings.
Conclusion: I argue people arespiritual beings using their bodies to have a human experience, therefore peopleare spiritual beings and not humans.
Con
#6
First, I’ll address some of your points, and then I willl address the conclusion:
"The (S_Gift’s) argument motion is [that] people are spiritual and not humans. Your (socratic gregarians) argument for duality, stating people are both spiritual and human, do[es] not apply in this motion.
Actually, it does. What I said was that yes, we are spiritual, but we also are human, that is how dualism applies. You think they are mutually exclusive. You think that either we are spiritual or human, or at least at our core spiritual, disregarding the subject of biology, which would beg to differ.. I draw this observation as you constantly refer to us as spiritual beings, with either none or little trace of humanity” I will address this point later in the conclusion.
You said that I said “ Citing Religious texts or figures as authoritative sources doesn't provide objective evidence for the argument” This is a lie - I never said that. But then you again contradicted yourself by saying: "Mantras etc among other inspired spiritual writings. In disregard of whatever religion one may believe in, there is only one underlying factor that people are spiritual beings.” This is an objective observation. Clear contradiction.
"Where there is smoke there is fire thus mythical stories came before written word and since they were accepted by peoples ancestors then, goes to say they have elements of truth. "
This is absurd. It’s like saying Greek gods were real just because people believed they were. Let me ask you, are these myths also real? https://www.ranker.com/list/weirdest-greek-myths/laura-allan
"You do agree that near death experiences are real"
I never explicitly said that, I said “even if near-death experiences are real…"
“People are spiritual beings and for the sake of this argument it means that people are purely spiritual beings using the bodies to have a human experience."
This is for the second time an absurd argument you present. You keep saying that people are only spiritual with none or little trace of humanity, as I mentioned above. If I were in a full-on spirit mode rn, I prolly wouldn’t even be having this debate.
"When people eat food, they use utensils to eat, however we cannot say the food and utensils are the same thing or are dual."
This is yet another absurd argument. Separation of body and brain, (living organisms), has nothing to do with drawing a differentiation between food and utensils.
"Your logical perspective arguments looks contradictory as you admit that people are spiritual beings but have not argued against the motion it its entirely."
No, I haven’t. But there’s no contradiction. You’ll see why in my conclusion.
"Your definition of intuition does not rule out that intuition comes from a spiritual source, "
It may or may not, but either way, we aren’t angelic for it.
Conclusion: There are Angels up in Heaven, they are purely spiritual. (they never die, they don’t have free will, etc.) We are a mix, which is why we have a HUMAN body, but a SPIRITUAL soul. You seem to think we are purely spiritual but I counter that if we were purely spiritual, as you suggest, we would be Angels.
In short, you think we are at our core spiritual, we just happened to be trapped in this human body. Science disagrees, logic disagrees and only low-rank philosophers agree with you, such as Pierre Teilhard de Charden - here’s his quote you didn’t give him credit for - (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/859132066390875811/)
In short, I think we are human, due to the fact that we have a human body. Science and logic agree with me here. But, we do have a spiritual soul given by G-d, and it goes back to Heaven when we die. Logic agrees, and so does the legendary philosopher Rene Descartes when he said “I think therefore I am” implying the dualism I used in my argument.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
As I understand the way the argument was structured, Pro did not satisfy their burden of proof.
Con made a very good point in saying that people can be both human and spiritual, and Pro did not do a good job of refuting that, so I say Con wins.
Also, Pro did not satisfy the burden of proof by not proving that we are spiritual beings. Sorry man, but you can’t really quote the Bible. Like Con said, it’s not an empirically verifiable source.
how can you lower the voting time frame during voting period?
Patience is a virtue.
Can we lower the voting time frame?
I’ll vote on this one soon
>choose to agree to disagree with you. Just because science cannot prove a school of thought does not mean it does not exist. Likewise, it does not mean if science cannot be proven, then spiritual science is inaccurate.
Firstly, that's a fallacy. A school of thought indeed requires logic, but logic alone does not equate to truth. It is also sophistry to claim that something can be real without proof. Evidence is necessary to substantiate the truth. Without the ability to prove existence or provide observable data to support a theory, one cannot declare their beliefs as possible, let alone true.
Secondly, the concept of "spiritual science" does not exist. Science relies on observable, testable, and proven studies of the world and its natural phenomena. In contrast, spirituality often draws from personal belief and folklore. Science does not accept what it cannot observe.
>I argue for being spiritual beings and not human beings, for people have been conditioned to only think of themselves as human, forgetting they were first spiritual. Do you not ever wonder why we refer to dead bodies as the 'body of [name]"? Why don't we say that is [name] in the coffin?
There are numerous issues with your statement. Firstly, upon what scientific evidence, grounded in physics or biology, do you base your audacious claim that people are not human? Genetics and even the most fundamental principles of biology refute this unscientific assertion. Secondly, I repeat my question: on what EMPIRICAL evidence do you base your assertion that humans were spiritual beings before being human, which you also claim they are not?
Regarding your question, it's a matter of simple logic. To be recognized as an individual, one requires a name for identification purposes. Without it, it would be unclear who is being referred to in conversations or research. Your argument appears to be, "Humans are not born with identification, therefore they must be spiritual." However, the flaw in this reasoning is that the absence of an inherent identity at birth has no bearing on whether individuals can be classified as human. You would need to somehow discrete thousands of years worth of study on both human anatomy and basic biology for your arguments to make sense.
"...there's no scientific proof of a spirit." I choose to agree to disagree with you. Just because science cannot proof a school of thought does not mean it does not exist. Like wise it does not mean if science cannot proof then spiritual science is inaccurate.
I argue for being spiritual beings and not human beings for people have been conditioned to only think of themselves as human forgetting they were first spiritual. Do you not ever wonder why we refer to dead bodies as the 'body of [name]", why dont we say that is [name] in the coffin?
> humans scientifically defined as homo sapiens species of genus homo. The spirit is nameless yet it is the very breath in us that makes the human body move. We referred to people of whom I am among people.
Your description of science is inaccurate. While humans are classified as Homo sapiens, there's no scientific proof of a spirit. Additionally, air isn't the sole necessity for breathing. Our ability to move is due to evolved limbs that need daily nutritional intake from calories, providing energy for daily activities.
Thus far, I perceive the initial argument presented by the proponent as rather unconvincing. Their exposition and primary contention seem to simply suggest that "Since we are born nameless, attend school, and become conditioned, we are not humans but rather ethereal beings." The reasoning is tenuous at most, and there is a lack of substantive evidence to back this claim.
Moreover, Con can straightforwardly demonstrate using biological science that humans are physical entities with a distinct biological process for development and progression throughout our lifespan. This differs from the notion of spiritual forms as depicted in numerous spiritual belief systems.
@Bella3sp, humans scientifically defined as homo sapiens species of genus homo. The spirit is nameless yet it is the very breath in us that makes the human body move. We referred to people of whom I am among people.
@Barney, I take the side of people are spiritual beings
Plus it should be clear which side you’re taking.
Define spiritual beings, and humans in your description, and I might accept.
Also, who is "we"?