that is really so so lame. I didnot edit my initial passage. a good debater always accepts his mistakes. My initial argument is still as it is i didnot edit it at all. If you will accept that you ignored reading it properly that it wont hurt you. And trust me, that really weakens your debating abilities even if i say it or not, You know it yourself.

Always such baseless arguments from this user. I have mentioned clearly above that support your arguemnt with evidence or opinion in favor or against the existence and controlling of this cult. This is not an aggressive debate, it is only to gather points from both sides to make an understanding about this cult. thats it. You always post such comments that adds nothing, just useless.

As the creator of the debate i would like to add first argument.

Well, take it as evidence, the economy of the whole world is in control of Rothchild and rockfellers and their fellow partners who are nothing but freemasons, tending to create a One world government commonly known as New World Order and American one dollar note says it all 'Nova Ordo Seculorum'. This gives us atleast an idea that something fishy is going on.

Brains, brains, BRAINS! What, are they zombies or something? They study the brain. They recognize patterns. Psychologists are usually really educated individuals. Have you studied the brain enough to have the authority to call bullshit?

Ha Ha, relax dude. otherwise some psychologist will come out and will recommend you help, and will tell you that "Brother, you need help". :D

Exactly my point, have you observed spirituality to call it bullshit?

Are you sure about that? In regards to religion, I'm an Agnostic... so I'm usually pretty open minded. I'm not going off the basis that spiritual beliefs are wrong, but I do know which has a better reputation. Really, discounting psychology as "100%" fake is a bit absurd.

Oh dear. What shall i do with you now? Right in the first response your lack of reading things is exposed. I never declared psychology 100% Fake. read that again. :) and after this, yes i m sure you quickly jumped onto the results in ur previous argument.

You made the assumption that pointing out a spiritual physician was some sort of evidence that spiritualism isn't whacky.

I m being doubtful still not sure, about your ability in understanding things. If i had to take that physician as an example, i could have mentioned him OUTSIDE THE BRACKETS. Read your WHOLE argument after that, it is nothing but assuming things and putting accusations.

I'm not really making any more accusations and assumptions than you have made. You assume that psychology is a 100% fake and that spiritualism isn't. You didn't say that my assumptions about you were wrong though.

lol. This shows how much do you read properly. See, dont tell me then that i m quickly believing into something. It is you, who is NOT reading and quickly jumping onto conclusions. I never called psychology 100% fake. Read my initial argument once again. :P

Metaphysics is just an abstract branch of philosophy.

Correct. Meta-physics talks about fourth dimensional entities, and therefore psychology rejects its. That is hilarious. One bracnh of science rejecting another.

What kind of answers do you want? This isn't a test, it's a debate!

Debate demands proper listening and reading and then argumenting. so It isnt even a debate for you. :)

Oh no. this argument is baseless and self-cancelled. Because at the same time the insane idea of anything doesnt need a creator also fall instantly. because till today, living things are creating living things, they are not being created by itself. :P

And one more thing by the way. What evidence is there to support psychologist theories? They only refer everything to brains, which are THEORIES, and theories are never a law unless they are proven.

At the moment you are the one who is quickly assuming things and believing them to be right. Dont be too judgemental so early. :)

Why are you picking words and assuming things and making your whole comment on the bases of it? Giving an example of a physician i know in brackets doesnt mean that my whole conversation and belief is based on that particular guy. This is very disappointing from you to make assumption like this.

And if i am biased and quick to believe whatever a spiritualist say, then i think you are biased too towards a psychologist. making such accusations will take us no-where. Lets avoid these childish behaviors. What else is there in your whole argument for me to reply? Only accusations and assumptions.

So here i m making a point. You have not made it more clearer what whacky is for you. And there are many other questions in my previous arguments which are left unanswered by you. Such as meta-physics ignorance by psychologists.

Dont give me an impression like this debate is going no-where because i m still seeing no answers from a psychology supporter.

Thats awesome for suspected terrorists law if it is implemented in its full form. I mean, if the suspected terrorists are not tortured in secret cells hidden from the human rights NGOs. lol.

Hmm. No. They dont offer their professional help only, they propose to forcefully believe that you suck and you are sick and you need help. (Sorry for these words). How do spiritualists appear to be whacky? i need a little more words on this. Because there are spiritualists who are very well educated (a physician i know who strongly believes in spiritualism), and they have observed and found truth in paranormal and spiritual science, which is actually not seen or understood by psychologists, so they can be called as blinded people from the truth who studied brain sciences and felt so complete and proud of it. Thing is, why do psychologists totally ignore meta-physics or fourth dimensional objectivity? One reason only i can assume, because they blinded from the truth?