This is a rather uncharted and controversial subject so feel free to offer lots of insights that aren't documented by "reputable scientist #45."

There are many people who grow up being sane and sensible. They live free of mental illness. They begin studying religion, meditation, self cultivation, the occult, various subjects otherwise, and become highly intelligent. They develop a form of what most would describe as schizophrenia in which they perceive religious and spiritual happenings. Ironically if you encourage them to try other religions out they often will still experience religion and spirituality except they will experience different kinds.

It leads a lot of people to wonder what is spirituality in reference to the mind? Is it brought on illness by misdirected knowledge? Or is it just a natural part of human development when they investigate things that are greater than themselves to develop a "spiritual" aspects of themselves.

My personal thought is that spirituality is a natural development however needs to be dealt with carefully as it is neurochemical in nature. It is possible to get too much of a good thing. I consider myself an Atheist as I have experienced many religious perspectives and learned that these are just passing perspectives of the mind. I continue to experience spirituality regardless of belief. I've learned to use it for a soothing effect rather than to get upset about it normally.

I would like to ask because it isn't specified by group rules or moderation an important question regarding ad hominem. Is intelligent, productive, and otherwise regarded, criticism based on character analysis of an individual(s) inappropriate when used in the normally considered appropriate manner against the rules? I find in debates to actually get each-other to agree on anything is to do what's mentioned above. I would differentiate this from evangelism because there is pressuring, demands, and other harassment involved in evangelism. The type of character analysis I refer to is civilized etc.

I would like to open up a discussion for the following:

I believe the reason we disagree on things philosophically is often not because of logic. Any number of arguments can have an A + B = C format. The issue becomes that A, B, or C can be anything at all.
If you go by a straight forward and non-creative thinking pattern that is based on publicly available proven information, you'll find you lack common sense and things aren't as they seem according to your observations. If you completely obey your observations you'll wind up contradicting history and often arguing conspiracy theories.
Ultimately the point of this past given example is to communicate indecisiveness of using logic only. I personally believe I have developed an interesting theory that I am slowly applying and planning on writing a book about eventually.

Here's my model of thinking:

Explore, fully comprehend, and memorize all base essential forms of knowledge and information. Using the idea of computational theory one should do the following assuming one is mentally well and physically functional: Let go to your sense of knowledge and do not focus on your biases. All the ideas and things you've become aware of to develop.
In essence let the information dictate what you believe, rather than dictate what the information makes you think. I really believe like a computer making a decision you would come to the right answer available on just about everything needed. You might not know everything about beyond earth...but oh well.
I don't recommend people try this without knowing a lot if not everything on a basic essential level.