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.
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"?