Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: suckmymuscle on October 02, 2010, 09:28:47 PM
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Debating "God's existence" and afterlife on getbig is the best place.
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Have fun in hell :P
-
What proof do you have that there is no afterlife?
-
No one knows what happens when we die so you can't absolutely know nothing happens when we die. Look at dreams for example, you are in another dimension but you snap back to this reality. No one pays attention to the idea you're off in outer space fucking supermodels in your dreams and it feels so real. Your consciousness is there. Who's to say your consciousness doesn't transcend to another vehicle when this one gives out? The beauty of life and death is that it's an unanswerable question. No one has the answers, and it's really a shame people settle for christianity and don't seek out more truth to the most amazing questions ever imagined.
-
What proof do you have that there is no afterlife?
Probably the same proof he has about being special forces, killing a german sheppard with his bare hands, benching 600 pounds RAW, etc.
-
Get off the drugs, kid.
-
What proof do you have that there is no afterlife?
People who are severely brain damaged in car crashes or those who become senile in old age often become indistinguishible from vegetables. It seems like the Human soul cannot survive without the brain. What you call the soul is nothing more than an awareness of physical reality that results from data processing in the brain, which is an electro-chemical process.
Now, we can debate endlessly what conscience is and how it appears. We have not made progress in this area since Aristotle. Is there something special about Human conscience? Does an ant have conscience? To me, this seems like an issue of definition and semantics. Consicence is not an either/or phenom, but something that exists in differing degrees. An ant has some awareness of it's surroundings that it needs to survive, just like a Human. But the Human brain is larger thus it processes more data and sees more logical relationships between ideas and thus has a more total image of the reality.
And your question doesen't make sense. So I need to disprove every absurd idea? What about lepricons or dwarves? Do I need to disprove them as well? I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary of all ideas that someone can come up with no matter how absurd they are. I have a better idea: what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife? ???
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
People who are severely brain damaged in car crashes or those who become senile in old age often become indistinguishible from vegetables. It seems like the Human soul cannot survive without the brain. What you call the soul is nothing more than an awareness of physical reality that results from data processing in the brain, which is an electro-chemical process.
Now, we can debate endlessly what conscience is and how it appears. We have not made progress in this area since Aristotle. Is there something special about Human conscience? Does an ant have conscience? To me, this seems like an issue of definition and semantics. Consicence is not an either/or phenom, but something that exists in differing degrees. An ant has some awareness of it's surroundings that it needs to survive, just like a Human. But the Human brain is larger thus it processes more data and sees more logical relationships between ideas and thus has a more total image of the reality.
And your question doesen't make sense. So I need to disprove every absurd idea? What about lepricons or dwarves? Do I need to disprove them as well? I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary of all ideas that someone can come up with no matter how absurd they are. I have a better idea: what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife? ???
SUCKMYMUSCLE
That's my point. There's no evidence to support afterlife exist or that it doesn't so it's not worth discussing.
-
8)
-
That's my point. There's no evidence to support afterlife exist or that it doesn't so it's not worth discussing.
Lol, no, that's not your point. All evidence indicates that when your brain cells die your conscience die as well. We have a way of knowing this since loss of brain matter correlates with loss of awareness, which religious people call the soul. I don't need to provide evidence to the contrary of an absurd hypothesis. I cannot prove that there isn't some occult hidden dimension where fairies exist. Does this means that there is the possibility that fairies exist? If you think so, then everything is possible and logic is invalid. I cannot prove with absolute certainty that an afterlife doesen't exist just like I can't prove that there isn't a hidden dimension where lepricons exist. But the evidence we do have as well as logic - the idea of an afterlife was invented by Humans out with none evidence to support it - indicates that odds are massively stacked against an aftelife. I repeat my question: where is your evidence for an afterlife? ??? ??? ???
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
What proof do you have that there is no afterlife?
Oh brother. You are never called upon to prove a Negative. Don't you know anything about logical fallacies? What a poor way to debate something. ::) ::)
-
Its consciousness, not conscience, what you're referring to.
I thought there was evidence of consciousness after death a la near death experiences. I'm not sure in what form it would exist but it obviously wouldnt be supported by your brain, since you're physiologically dead. So comparing that to the conciousness of a brain-dead person doesnt make sense, since they're still alive.
Also, I noticed Ive been spelling consciousness wrong for a while... forgot about the 's' following the 'con'
And does anyone know if Matt C is a homosexual in here?
-
Why don't you start by defining "after-life" and when you are through, discuss the parameters of "eternity"
Sad little man. Nothing to live for.. or die for, for that matter.
Look up the word "faith"
You may want to really read the bible instead of exhausting yourself with metaphysical and philosophical B.S.
One thing I can state with 100% accuracy is this: There is absolutely NO promise of tomorrow.
-
Its consciousness, not conscience, what you're referring to.
I was refering to conscience as a phenom, so the word can be used. No need to be excessively pedantic.
I thought there was evidence of consciousness after death a la near death experiences. I'm not sure in what form it would exist but it obviously wouldnt be supported by your brain, since you're physiologically dead. So comparing that to the conciousness of a brain-dead person doesnt make sense, since they're still alive.
Ugh, the people who have near-death experiences are not dead by definition: if they were they wouldn't come back since resurrection is impossible. What they have are most likely hallucinations caused by anoxic states. So your point is mute. People with slight brain damage also have hallucinations and such. This doesen't mean that they are seeing an afterlife.
Also, I noticed Ive been spelling consciousness wrong for a while... forgot about the 's' following the 'con'
When you try to sound pedantic to appear smart, you should at least apply the proper orthography of the words you're using.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Hmm, sounds like a subscriber of YouTube's THEAMAZINGATHEIST to me.
-
I was refering to conscience as a phenom, so the word can be used. No need to be excessively pedantic.
Ugh, the people who have near-death experiences are not dead by definition: if they were they wouldn't come back since resurrection is impossible. What they have are most likely hallucinations caused by anoxic states. So your point is mute. People with slight brain damage also have hallucinations and such. This doesen't mean that they are seeing an afterlife.
When you try to sound pedantic to appear smart, you should at least apply the proper orthography of the words you're using.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Look up the definition of 'conscience' versus 'consciousness' you idiot. And its 'phenomenon,' not 'phenom' you fucking genius. And I admitted to my own PREVIOUS misspellings, so your point is MOOT, not 'mute,' yet again... I didn't misspell it in my post. I was merely trying to use the proper words in the conversation; spellings are a different matter, and definitely not something i was concerned about ::)
If you're gonna try to appear smart, and a know-it-all then atleast use the proper words, genius.
I don't know much about the subject, but I've heard of people being resuscitated after being clinically dead (whatever that means). Some of them have reported being conscious (but in a different state), and have even reported being able to observe themselves and their surrounding from above while still 'unconscious' (and accurately so, as far as i know).
-
lol :D
-
i don't feel like debating such a deep subject with a guy who goes by the name suck my muscle ::)
-
Look up the definition of 'conscience' versus 'consciousness' you idiot. And its 'phenomenon,' not 'phenom' you fucking genius. And I admitted to my own PREVIOUS misspellings, so your point is MOOT, not 'mute,' yet again... I didn't misspell it in my post. I was merely trying to use the proper words in the conversation; spellings are a different matter, and definitely not something i was concerned about
First of all meltdown. I don't give a shit if I mispelled words you dipshit because I, unlike you, I am not concerned with appearing smart via orthography being a pedantic asshole. I am tired, feeling sleepy and English is not even my first language, so fuck you.
If you're gonna try to appear smart, and a know-it-all then atleast use the proper words, genius.
Look who's talking: the little Paki nerd who uses pedantic words to appear smart. It's not my fault that you are a dumbass and that my normal conversations strike you as being smart. It's obvious you have an inferiority complex in relation to me and that I make you feel stupid since you have accused me several times of trying to appear smart. Only a stupid person says that. Sorry.
I don't know much about the subject, but I've heard of people being resuscitated after being clinically dead (whatever that means).
No, those people were not dead. Being dead means the cessation of all physiological and biochemical functions which has never happened in any of these cases. In all cases, some physiological function remained working so the individual wasn't dead.
Some of them have reported being conscious (but in a different state), and have even reported being able to observe themselves and their surrounding from above while still 'unconscious' (and accurately so, as far as i know).
How does that prove they were dead, idiot? That only means that they were seeing things in an unconscious state. I have had tons of dreams where I saw myself. It doesen't mean shit.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I know for a fact that SMM is totally retarded with a serious case of sociopathy.
-
The argument that it is impossible to prove that there is no afterlife is odd. Yes, I cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no afterlife just like I cannot prove with 100% certaintly that there isn't a parallel dimension where fairies and lepricons exist. I don't need to disprove every absurd idea. Not all ideas are valid. Only logical ones are. To be logical, an idea needs to lack contradictions and be consistent. Without contradictions and consistency, logic itself doesen't exist and everything, no matter how absurd, is possible. Now, the Universe itself is a logic-based system evident by the existence of laws of physics, chemistry, physiology, etc. Without the limitations imposed by the imposition of logic that rules must be non-contradictory, the Universe couldn't work as there would be no laws determining a precise functioning of the Universe and chaos would be ensued. The laws of physics, chemistry, physiology, etc, all come into creating the Human brain and consciousness. It is easy to see how these laws came about to create a brain capable of processing data and having awareness of physical reality to enhance the survival of the DNA molecule. There is evidence that Human consciousness is the product of the Human brain, and that thus consciousness starts and ends with the Human brain. Human consciousness exists to enhance the survival of the DNA, it is the product of the brain and is formed with the formation of the brain and ceases to exist with the destruction of the brain. Me disproving the opposite hypothesis is not necessary because the opposite hypothesis is illogical, there is no evidence to support it and if I have to disprove it means that I would need to disprove all absurd conjectures. In this case, methinks that plausible deniability is valid.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
In this case, methinks that plausible deniability is valid.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Total bullshit, but i offer a solution for us all: Jump from a bridge, then you can find out if there's an afterlife or not. Make sure that you jump together with your computer/I-phone, so you can post the answer on getbig if there IS an afterlife.
-
Total bullshit, but i offer a solution for us all: Jump from a bridge, then you can find out if there's an afterlife or not. Make sure that you jump together with your computer/I-phone, so you can post the answer on getbig if there IS an afterlife.
This post is pure DK quality. No wonder you chose "Donkey" as your username. Lol.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
This post is pure DK quality. No wonder you chose "Donkey" as your username. Lol.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
See, i don't need to "prove" my intellect on an internet message board.
Your argumentation would provoke histerical laughter in any university, but here on getbig your no-paragraph bullshit makes you feel like a professor... ::)
-
See, i don't need to "prove" my intellect on an internet message board.
Your argumentation would provoke histerical laughter in any university, but here on getbig your no-paragraph bullshit makes you feel like a professor...
And yet you're unable to offer any critique of anything I've written. As for the universities, yes, I am sure that most university alumni would side with the hypothesis without evidence or logical consistency in detriment of the one that has. I don't know if you're aware of this, but most people who have erudiction are either atheistic or agnostic and thus most likely don't believe in an afterlife.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I am polytheistic.
I also think death is same as before born: blank out
scary huh
the VOID
-
I am polytheistic.
I also think death is same as before born: blank out
scary huh
the VOID
you believe in more invisible men in the sky "tallgerman"?
-
i hope there is something after life i really want to believe
so i have this new girl she's really cute and beautiful, she's turkish and really believes in god i tried to explain her dinosaurs etc hahaha and that there can't be adam and eve hahah funny conversation
-
unless you've died, you don't know jack-shit
-
whether their is or isn't, why worry?
Just live your life for now
-
I agree, there is no after-"life", at least none that we can imagine in any shape or form.
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Well, I'm convinced!! What an inferior ass I've been.
I'm copying and pasting this post into an email and forwarding to it the entire congregation of my church....we are all so stupid and our lives so shitty.
-
No one knows what happens when we die so you can't absolutely know nothing happens when we die. Look at dreams for example, you are in another dimension but you snap back to this reality. No one pays attention to the idea you're off in outer space fucking supermodels in your dreams and it feels so real. Your consciousness is there. Who's to say your consciousness doesn't transcend to another vehicle when this one gives out? The beauty of life and death is that it's an unanswerable question. No one has the answers, and it's really a shame people settle for christianity and don't seek out more truth to the most amazing questions ever imagined.
Great post - very well put.
-
I am polytheistic.
I also think death is same as before born: blank out
scary huh
the VOID
What's the old saying? " I was dead for billions of years before I was alive and suffered no ill effect from it "
-
Debating "God's existence" and afterlife on getbig is the best place.
LOL!!
-
Debating "God's existence" and afterlife on getbig is the best place.
God was a Bodybuilder too. ;)
My god is stronger then your god. :o :o
-
Sucky, I may have missed it but did you post the "fact" that proves there is no afterlife?
-
No one knows what happens when we die so you can't absolutely know nothing happens when we die. Look at dreams for example, you are in another dimension but you snap back to this reality. No one pays attention to the idea you're off in outer space fucking supermodels in your dreams and it feels so real. Your consciousness is there. Who's to say your consciousness doesn't transcend to another vehicle when this one gives out? The beauty of life and death is that it's an unanswerable question. No one has the answers, and it's really a shame people settle for christianity and don't seek out more truth to the most amazing questions ever imagined.
But the Voice of truth tells me a different story.
The Voice of truth says "do not be afraid!"
And the Voice of truth says "this is for My glory!"
Out of all the voices calling out to me
I will choose to listen and believe the Voice of truth.
Just some some lyrics I like.
-
First of all meltdown. I don't give a shit if I mispelled words you dipshit because I, unlike you, I am not concerned with appearing smart via orthography being a pedantic asshole. I am tired, feeling sleepy and English is not even my first language, so fuck you.
Look who's talking: the little Paki nerd who uses pedantic words to appear smart. It's not my fault that you are a dumbass and that my normal conversations strike you as being smart. It's obvious you have an inferiority complex in relation to me and that I make you feel stupid since you have accused me several times of trying to appear smart. Only a stupid person says that. Sorry.
No, those people were not dead. Being dead means the cessation of all physiological and biochemical functions which has never happened in any of these cases. In all cases, some physiological function remained working so the individual wasn't dead.
How does that prove they were dead, idiot? That only means that they were seeing things in an unconscious state. I have had tons of dreams where I saw myself. It doesen't mean shit.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
bla bla bla, here we go with the ol' 'meltdown!' deflection. stop being such a senstive bitch.. all because I pointed out that you were using the wrong word. for fucks sake ::) I'm not using any pedantic words at all, JUST THE CORRECT WORD YOU STUPID BITCH. Conscience is not even CLOSE to the word consciousness, you just can't take the fact that you had a slip up or could be wrong. 'Orthography'? Why can't you just say I wasn't spelling it right... talk about using pedantic words ::)
I did not make a big point of this, you did. It tells us a lot about you that you would do this over such a small correction :-*
The dead people I'm talking about had no heart beat and in some cases no reported EEG readings either. Then how were they able to observe their REAL surroundings, that were later verified? Surely there must be a consciousness operating there.
Oh and I'm done responding to you. Like I've said before you're an egomaniacal sociopathic asshole. I know that for a fact.
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
i agree with you about belief in an afterlife. i dont see any reason to believe in such a thing when theres no evidence supporting its existence and no reason to lead me to believe in it.
however that is totally unrelated to God. without God existence is impossible. God is absolutely necessary, by definiton.
God created this phycisal universe and all the laws inside of it in order to give life to an infinite number of beings, in all shapes and forms and intellects, through the magnificent process of evolution. we are given what time we get, and that is all we seem to get.
stories of a pleasureable afterlife took root in socrates, when he rejected the tales of haides underworld on the basis that men afraid of death would not be courageous nor lead their lifes correctly.
-
without God existence is impossible.
how the fuck do you know?
-
The dead people I'm talking about had no heart beat and in some cases no reported EEG readings either. Then how were they able to observe their REAL surroundings, that were later verified? Surely there must be a consciousness operating there.
I don't want to get into a serious, prolonged discussion here, but I agree with this. As James and a couple of others have pointed out, it's impossible to conceive things beyond our understanding and perception (and there's much more of that than what we do know collectively), let alone say with absolute authority as to what is possible or where to draw the line.
Something supernatural happened to me IRL 3 years ago, that changed everything for me, but it was like Jodie Foster's trip in the movie 'Contact' - something I experienced personally and solely, which was physical/physiological and not just psychological. But I have no proof of what happened or even fully know about it, although my behaviour noticeably changed for the few weeks that bracketed the whole incident, which was itself of a prolonged duration (~ 3 months). I'm sure there's tons of people here who'd dismiss such a claim without hesitation, simply because it doesn't fit into their understanding of reality or has been categorized as such and such phenomenon by 'Scientists'.
My point is that there are unusual things and happenings that a handful of people experience, which never happens to the majority and which is not easy or even possible to explain. Depending on the person, these things can be categorized as anything ranging from delusion to full-blown religious experience. While a lot of it is definitely in the imagination of the person claiming such an experience, not all of it made up or bullshit.
-
This is like the morons who say theres no life on other planets, like they ve visited all 10 billion planets out there and know, same with this. You havent died therefore you cant say for sure theres no afterlife.
Bellend.
-
None of you have a clue what the fuck happens when we die so really should stfu and quit attempting to debate such nonsense.
-
I don't want to get into a serious, prolonged discussion here, but I agree with this. As James and a couple of others have pointed out, it's impossible to conceive things beyond our understanding and perception (and there's much more of that than what we do know collectively), let alone say with absolute authority as to what is possible or where to draw the line.
Something supernatural happened to me IRL 3 years ago, that changed everything for me, but it was like Jodie Foster's trip in the movie 'Contact' - something I experienced personally and solely, which was physical/physiological and not just psychological. But I have no proof of what happened or even fully know about it, although my behaviour noticeably changed for the few weeks that bracketed the whole incident, which was itself of a prolonged duration (~ 3 months). I'm sure there's tons of people here who'd dismiss such a claim without hesitation, simply because it doesn't fit into their understanding of reality or has been categorized as such and such phenomenon by 'Scientists'.
My point is that there are unusual things and happenings that a handful of people experience, which never happens to the majority and which is not easy or even possible to explain. Depending on the person, these things can be categorized as anything ranging from delusion to full-blown religious experience. While a lot of it is definitely in the imagination of the person claiming such an experience, not all of it made up or bullshit.
I've had a few spiritual experiences that caused change in me. They were private moments, but absolutely real. I speak a lot now of the love of the Christ and his gift of salvation (which is very important to me), but there are also demonic forces at work (that I've had brief tastes of) and they ain't friendlies.
-
If THE BEEF did not believe in an afterlife, if THE BEEF had to only answer to man's justice. THE BEEF would have been a career criminal, no question.
THE BEEF
-
The argument that it is impossible to prove that there is no afterlife is odd. Yes, I cannot prove with 100% certainty that there is no afterlife just like I cannot prove with 100% certaintly that there isn't a parallel dimension where fairies and lepricons exist. I don't need to disprove every absurd idea. Not all ideas are valid. Only logical ones are. To be logical, an idea needs to lack contradictions and be consistent. Without contradictions and consistency, logic itself doesen't exist and everything, no matter how absurd, is possible. Now, the Universe itself is a logic-based system evident by the existence of laws of physics, chemistry, physiology, etc. Without the limitations imposed by the imposition of logic that rules must be non-contradictory, the Universe couldn't work as there would be no laws determining a precise functioning of the Universe and chaos would be ensued. The laws of physics, chemistry, physiology, etc, all come into creating the Human brain and consciousness. It is easy to see how these laws came about to create a brain capable of processing data and having awareness of physical reality to enhance the survival of the DNA molecule. There is evidence that Human consciousness is the product of the Human brain, and that thus consciousness starts and ends with the Human brain. Human consciousness exists to enhance the survival of the DNA, it is the product of the brain and is formed with the formation of the brain and ceases to exist with the destruction of the brain. Me disproving the opposite hypothesis is not necessary because the opposite hypothesis is illogical, there is no evidence to support it and if I have to disprove it means that I would need to disprove all absurd conjectures. In this case, methinks that plausible deniability is valid.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I said this on the 1st page. You are never called upon to prove a negative. Its a logical fallacy and a poor way to debate.
-
how the fuck do you know?
logic. causal chain. infinitely complex universe, infitely complex constituents of the universe. material substance (mass/energy) that is completely incomprehensible from any angle or view point. and other things.
-
I've had a few spiritual experiences that caused change in me. They were private moments, but absolutely real.
I'm sure it happened, because I know what kind of person you are. But most people out there wouldn't believe it, for various reasons.
For most people, absence of proof = proof of absence. Guess you can never convince everyone out there.
-
logic. causal chain. infinitely complex universe, infitely complex constituents of the universe. material substance (mass/energy) that is completely incomprehensible from any angle or view point. and other things.
A good BLT sandwich and a nice pint, if there is any truth to your argument.
-
I said this on the 1st page. You are never called upon to prove a negative. Its a logical fallacy and a poor way to debate.
I agree. I sometimes like to listen to William Lane Craig debate atheists, but I've never liked his arguement that requires the atheist to prove atheism exists (something to that effect). I don't know, if a debate is necessary, I guess it seems a bit more sensible for a theist to bare the burden of proof for the existence of God than an atheist to proof that atheism exists. Maybe I'm missing the mark.
-
"I cannot prove with 100% certaintly that there isn't a parallel dimension where fairies and lepricons exist..."
I can. Isn't it called Getbig.com?
-
I'm sure it happened, because I know what kind of person you are. But most people out there wouldn't believe it, for various reasons.
For most people, absence of proof = proof of absence. Guess you can never convince everyone out there.
the human brain is very powerful. no matter what you experienced, its possible it was a figment of your imagination, your brain creating a scenario that will cause you to become a more happy person, allow you to live your life without depression or inhibtions stopping you from reproduction, eating, sleeping, being healthy, ect. religious experiences of all sorts can easily be explained and dismissed by a brain defense reaction to unhealthy thoughts about mortality and death that would block you from self sustaining behavior. if time is infinite, and our life definite, then we are so insignificant that our lives are all but meaningless. belief in a god, and thus an afterlife, is something most people will find necessary for happiness.
that is only to say, i dont like it much when people only believe in god because of personal experiences, or when they try to convince other people based on their own personal experiences. because its faulty argumentation.
use logic instead. and then once the people get it, they can have their own experience(s) as well.
i know that god is real. i came to the realization through logic and science.only after realizing the necessity for God did i try speaking to him, and which point i started coming to believe not just through logic but through experience as well. but thats personal and wont convince anyone, not even me, of God. there needs to be logic invoved as well.
-
i know that god is real. i came to the realization through logic and science.
Hahahaa
-
I'm sure it happened, because I know what kind of person you are. But most people out there wouldn't believe it, for various reasons.
For most people, absence of proof = proof of absence. Guess you can never convince everyone out there.
It's really other believers in Christ that understand and believe it. No matter how lucid I am perceived by everyone else the majority of the time that same audience will chalk up my experience to a either a drug-induced moment or state of utter delusion or temporary mental collapse. It's why I don't share these experiences often unless I really trust that my audience already understands where I'm coming from.
-
the human brain is very powerful. no matter what you experienced, its possible it was a figment of your imagination
No argument there, but in regards to what happened to me, it was of a prolonged duration, left me with a complete personality change, caused a marked change in my behaviour during that time which was witnessed by everyone who knew me, as well as a couple of other things that I won't go into. It was definitely not me just imagining it.
-
Hahahaa
Hehe. That caught my attention, too. How is it that he hasn't yet been awarded the Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking, I ask you? ;D
-
No argument there, but in regards to what happened to me, it was of a prolonged duration, left me with a complete personality change, caused a marked change in my behaviour during that time which was witnessed by everyone who knew me, as well as a couple of other things that I won't go into. It was definitely not me just imagining it.
All in the brain my friend. Certainly not your imagination but poweerful biochemical changes going on there....
-
It's really other believers in Christ that understand and believe it. No matter how lucid I am perceived by everyone else the majority of the time that same audience will chalk up my experience to a either a drug-induced moment or state of utter delusion or temporary mental collapse. It's why I don't share these experiences often unless I really trust that my audience already understands where I'm coming from.
I'm not a Christian or associated with any religion, but I'm a fairly good judge of character, which is why I know you aren't just making it up for whatever reason. But how you interpret what happened to you or what you associate it with (Christianity) isn't for me to judge or endorse.
-
I'm not a Christian or associated with any religion, but I'm a fairly good judge of character, which is why I know you aren't just making it up for whatever reason. But how you interpret what happened to you or what you associate it with (Christianity) isn't for me to judge or endorse.
No worries, I don't get upset with others if they don't share my beliefs, but as long as they understand what I belief and how I came to belief and how they can do the same if they choose to I'm good.
-
Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking
;D
-
All in the brain my friend. Certainly not your imagination but poweerful biochemical changes going on there....
Firstly, it wasn't just "all in the brain" and secondly, it's not wise of you to conclude that without even knowing what it was that happened to me.
Have you heard of twins having a mental bond where one of them can sense the other one getting hurt even though they weren't in the same proximity? You'd never know what that feels like unless you had a twin yourself, so for you to say that it's simply in their imagination or a result of biochemical changes in their brain would be absurd.
The chemical change in your brain is the physical reaction / manifestation that brings about or is brought about by the experience or phenomenon, but it's not the sole cause or effect of the whole thing - at least not always and absolutely.
2000 years ago, people weren't aware of radio waves, cause they didn't know the science behind it or have the technology to make it palpable, but it was as real back then as it is now - we were just not advanced enough to know about it. Same goes for things like aliens and God and all that - just because you don't see proof of it due to our limited understanding and even more limited technological prowess doesn't mean that those things aren't out there or are possible.
-
Firstly, it wasn't just "all in the brain" and secondly, it's not wise of you to conclude that without even knowing what it was that happened to me.
Have you heard of twins having a mental bond where one of them can sense the other one getting hurt even though they weren't in the same proximity? You'd never know what that feels like unless you had a twin yourself, so for you to say that it's simply in their imagination or a result of biochemical changes in their brain would be absurd.
The chemical change in your brain is the physical reaction / manifestation that brings about or is brought about by the experience or phenomenon, but it's not the sole cause or effect of the whole thing - at least not always and absolutely.
200 years ago, people weren't aware of radio waves, cause they didn't know the science behind it or have the technology to make it palpable, but it was as real back then as it is now - we were just not advanced enough to know about it. Same goes for things like aliens and God and all that - just because you don't see proof of it due to our limited understanding and even more limited technological prowess doesn't mean that those things aren't out there or are possible.
What are you trying to say Lord of TEG? God is real?
-
Vivek has a lot of great ideas on what life is. Like man of steel says, many people can't take it seriously because they've never expereinced all of the thoughts that bring a person to such thinking but if you take it for what it's worth you can learn a great deal. (not saying vivek is right on any level, but a lot of what he says is worth thinking about)
-
What are you trying to say Lord of TEG? God is real?
LOL, just that it's stupid to brush something aside simply because it falls outside the boundaries of what you think is possible or real, and that there are things and phenomenon that you haven't experienced or heard about but are very real nevertheless.
You can't believe everything or even need to be concerned about what lies outside the realm of what is acceptable as reality (God, for example), but you can't say for a fact that what you think is possible or not is all there is to it.
-
I agree. I sometimes like to listen to William Lane Craig debate atheists, but I've never liked his arguement that requires the atheist to prove atheism exists (something to that effect). I don't know, if a debate is necessary, I guess it seems a bit more sensible for a theist to bare the burden of proof for the existence of God than an atheist to proof that atheism exists. Maybe I'm missing the mark.
No, I think you're spot on. Ann Rynd has said this over and over again in interviews. You are never called upon to prove a negative. Imagine if everyone debated like that? You can never have a logical debate because most things cannot be proven 100%. Its like saying, "can you disprove that little unicorns and leprachauns don't exist in an alternate dimension?" Of course I can't prove that. Who can? Its a stupid way to debate and proves nothing.
If you make a claim (God exists) you have to prove it. I don't have to prove God doesn't exist for the same reason I don't have to prove that unicorns or fairies don't exist. Theists always use that argument and its really pathetic.
-
If you make a claim (God exists) you have to prove it.
Not necessarily, unless he's being militant and asking you to accept it. If he has a reason for thinking God exists and perhaps has even experienced something that makes him think that, he's entitled to that belief. His not being able to prove it to you simply because it's beyond his physical capacity doesn't mean it's not real, though.
To give an example, if I had a dream where I fly like Superman (and I've had lots of those, lol), I can't prove it to you. But I did dream that and can recollect it perfectly, so I know it's true, even though you could never see it for yourself (that I dreamt it).
I don't have to prove God doesn't exist for the same reason I don't have to prove that unicorns or fairies don't exist.
You don't have to, of course, but that doesn't make it proof that it doesn't exist ;)
-
LOL, just that it's stupid to brush something aside simply because it falls outside the boundaries of what you think is possible or real, and that there are things and phenomenon that you haven't experienced or heard about but are very real nevertheless.
You can't believe everything or even need to be concerned about what lies outside the realm of what is acceptable as reality (God, for example), but you can't say for a fact that what you think is possible or not is all there is to it.
Sure. But that doesn't bar the possibility that there could be rational explanations for what happened to you, just as it is possible (though unlikely) there is magic at work (magic here being a substitute for the inexplicable...as yet).
-
Sure. But that doesn't bar the possibility that there could be rational explanations for what happened to you, just as it is possible (though unlikely) there is magic at work (magic here being a substitute for the inexplicable...as yet).
No doubt. Just bear in mind that rationality has a limit and is constrained by the amount of knowledge we have, as well as the limitations of our conciousness, which I don't have to tell you is neither infinite nor omniscient.
I'm all for finding a rational explanation for everything I see and experience, which is why I admit that there are things / phenomenon and possibilities beyond our understanding and capacity to conceptualize.
If this was 2000 years ago and I had some quirky medical condition that made my brain sensitive to radio waves, it's a bit like me saying I experienced something and you saying it's just my imagination and that there could be a rational explanation for it. What was "magic / inexplicable" back then is common knowledge now and the same could be true for things like aliens and even concepts like God. Who knows?
-
Not necessarily, unless he's being militant and asking you to accept it. If he has a reason for thinking God exists and perhaps has even experienced something that makes him think that, he's entitled to that belief. His not being able to prove it to you simply because it's beyond his physical capacity doesn't mean it's not real, though.
To give an example, if I had a dream where I fly like Superman (and I've had lots of those, lol), I can't prove it to you. But I did dream that and can recollect it perfectly, so I know it's true, even though you could never see it for yourself (that I dreamt it).
No, he doesn't have to prove it. However, his own subjective experience does not mean its an objective fact. He can believe ALL he wants to believe. Fine with me. I just don't like the fact that theists use their subjective experience to try and prove an objective fact. That is my problem. It is purely subjective and that's all it is. It is real to him on a subjective plane. And that's all. And if he wants to believe that, its fine with me.
You don't have to, of course, but that doesn't make it proof that it doesn't exist ;)
Of course it doesn't. And like I said, I can't prove for a 100% certainty that it doesn't exist. It can exist. However, I have my logic and reason and I have certain tools to make an educated guess on whether or not something exists. The higher the probability of something not existing, the better.
and like I said, asking someone to prove a negative is a poor way to debate someone.
-
No, he doesn't have to prove it. However, his own subjective experience does not mean its an objective fact.
Yes it does. If you have a dream and are able to recollect it with a fair degree of certainty (not the details, but the fact that you did have that dream), the dream is a FACT. But it's not provable due to the physical limitations.
The experience is subjective, but the actual concept or incident is objective, because it did happen - it just wasn't witnessed by anyone else. Which is why it's hard or impossible for you to accept, which is fully in your right to do, of course. What I'm saying is, don't dismiss the claim as a lie or bullshit for that same reason.
-
If my spore prints come out jet black i'm going to see god next saturday ;D
-
Great post - very well put.
Lmao, no, terrible post. He is equating having dreams with being in a parallel dimension. I can close my eyes and imagine that I am floating in outer space or create an imaginary world that works completely differently from ours. The mind is capable of imagination. When you dream your mind is active and creating the images you see. Can you prove that you go to an alternate reality while you sleep? Until then, a priori we must assume that the images you see while you sleep are products of the mind.
And near-death experiences are called near death experiences and not death experiences because you are not dead. What you see in near-death experiences cannot be considered being dead because you are not dead. The brain is still active and the hallucinations are most likely caused by anoxic states. For these experiences being valid true death followed by resurrection would be necessary and this has never ever happened. True death is defined as follows:
- All brain activity ceases.
- The heart must also cease working for more than about 10 minutes because otherwise, even if all brain activity ceases, the brain will keep receiving oxygen-rich blood and survive in a latent state.
There has never been a single case of brain and heart death where the heart stopped pumping for more than 5 minutes and the person was brought back. Ok?????
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
He is equating having dreams with being in a parallel dimension.
He is not equating, just drawing a parallel. What I read from his post is that he thinks it is possible for the conciousness to depart from the body and still exist in some way or form, which is beyond our capacity to know. I agree with you about the definition of death and what it entails.
-
No doubt. Just bear in mind that rationality has a limit and is constrained by the amount of knowledge we have, as well as the limitations of our conciousness, which I don't have to tell you is neither infinite nor omniscient.
I'm all for finding a rational explanation for everything I see and experience, which is why I admit that there are things / phenomenon and possibilities beyond our understanding and capacity to conceptualize.
If this was 2000 years ago and I had some quirky medical condition that made my brain sensitive to radio waves, it's a bit like me saying I experienced something and you saying it's just my imagination and that there could be a rational explanation for it. What was "magic / inexplicable" back then is common knowledge now and the same could be true for things like aliens and even concepts like God. Who knows?
Ok, two things. There are infinite things we cannot explain and yet the theories we have to explain them are not valid if they lack evidence and logic. You cannot say that just because some people see themselves floating on top of their bodies when in grave physical states that what they are seeing is death. It is a theory, but a theory is always discarded in favor of more logically plausible theories for which there is more evidence. Between the two theories, one claiming that it is death that they are seeing and the other that it is hallucinations caused by the physical workings of a still working brain, the more plausible theory is the second one. So until a more plausible explanation appears, we must assume the one that our deductive reasoning tells us is the most likely.
For instance, no one understands the workings of sub atomic particles. No one understands why we can't know the location and speed of particles at the same time. Quantum mechanics goes against logic and yet it is plausible because the predictions made by scientists work with over 99.99999% accuracy. In this case, logic is trumped by overwhelming evidence. Sometimes logic is not obvious and evidence that something that appears illogical is indeed logical merely indicates that there are extraneous variables that make the logic not obvious to us, but it is logical because the evidence that it woorks indicates that.
A theory must be logically plausible for it to be acceptable. If it is not logical but there is evidence for it being valid - when it produces effects that can be verified - the theory is valid and the only reason why it appears illogical is because there are variables involved that we cannot account for.
For instance, there is no evidence that lepricons and fairies do exist: they have never been seen, caught on camera and there is no reason why they should exist: all laws of logic tells us that there is no reason or mechanism about that could result in the existence of creatures that defy all laws of physics and common sense, such as walking through walls, turning objects into other object, living without sustenenace(having to eat) etc. Now, even though evidence and common sense tells us that fairies and pericons are not possible in our reality without breaking the laws of physics as well as biology, there could be some parallel universe with different laws of physics where they do exist. In this case, lack of evidence cannot be used to disprove the existence of fairies and lepricons. However, logic can still be used to disprove it via plausible deniability: we cannot conceive of a logically working universe where such beings would come about, via which laws physics that would be completely absurd, and if there are universes where such logically implausible beings are possible, then any universe with even more unlikely beings and things that defy logic in even more absurd ways are also possible, and then everything is possible and logic is invalid to describe reality and then we are going nowhere because if logic cannot be used to draw conclusions then there is no structure in reality and everything would be chaos. Because reality does work via a precise way, then logic is valid and the existence of things and the possibility of theories to explain the workings of things must be evaluated via deductive logic and inferential data. Ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
He is not equating, just drawing a parallel. What I read from his post is that he thinks it is possible for the conciousness to depart from the body and still exist in some way or form, which is beyond our capacity to know. I agree with you about the definition of death and what it entails.
Yes, sure, but what is more
likely? That what he is seeing is truly death or hallucinations caused by a brain that still has some activity and is still receiving oxygen? Between two theories, the one that is more logically plausible and for which there is evidence of it's working trumps the one that is less. Since we know that images are formed in the brain by the electrochemical processes of the brain, and since the brain still has activity in these neard-death experiences, then logical deduction tells us that it is far more likely that the near death experiences are hallucinations and not the soul seeing that thingss.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
For instance, there is no evidence that lepricons leprechauns and fairies do exist: they have never been seen, caught on camera
How about this for definitive proof?
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5dJznTAwLSY/0.jpg)
Apparently they like fire too.
-
Well, I went camping in Willow Creek back in 1997 and saw Bigfoot. What do you think about that?
-
This video will put all discussion in this thread to an end. Guys you have no balls!!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b65_1185917647
-
When you post with a title talking about facts, i expect to see studies etc to prove your stance not the selfish ramblings of an ego maniac.
you make some interesting points though, and if there were no afterlife then i would agree with you to an extent, however i must ask you:
what if you are wrong ?
-
When you post with a title talking about facts, i expect to see studies etc to prove your stance not the selfish ramblings of an ego maniac.
you make some interesting points though, and if there were no afterlife then i would agree with you to an extent, however i must ask you:
what if you are wrong ?
see the video above
-
Similar of what I saw on that Winter night back in 1997. Footprints were about 15in long. I never believed in Bigfoot but what we saw was either a moron dressed in a suit risking getting shot or the real deal.
-
When you post with a title talking about facts, i expect to see studies etc to prove your stance not the selfish ramblings of an ego maniac.
What about studies proving the opposite hypothesis? Why do you when confronted with two theories, one for which there is no evidence and which goes against probability and deductive logic, and the other for which there is some evidence and is definitely far more reasonably logical, as for proof for the latter but not for the former?
you make some interesting points though, and if there were no afterlife then i would agree with you to an extent, however i must ask you:
what if you are wrong ?
I can be wrong about this just like I can be wrong about the existence of infinite dimensions where everything is possible no matter how ridiculous. Maybe logic is an illusion. Maybe the pre-condition for logic, the existence of contradictions and limits, is something that only applies to our physical reality and there are realms of boundless potential out there where everything is possible because properties relate to each other in manners where contradictions are impossible. Maybe there are realms where logic still aplies but through different axioms where things that are absurd and impossible in our reality are possible. Maybe there are infinite of such dimensions and thus infinite possibilities are completely possible without logic being broken in the total realm of possibility. Who knows? But the physical reality that we live in clearly has boundaries and things that posses inherit contradictions are not possible. And also because our senses can only comprehend reality accepting boundaries - because our though process is deductive and thus works using boundaries to draw conclusion - apossibilites that do not have boundaties are beyond deductive logic and thus beyond our thought processes.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Here's another.
-
Here's another.
No ape (apart from homo sapiens) walks entirely upright. I am calling bullshit.
-
Whether there is a after life or not, without religion and the fear of punishment in the after life, you would have never gotten this far. Humans would still be living in mud huts ect... because no one would allow there to be anything beyond that. Soon as one person had more the the next, the mob would kill that person. In a society without the fear of god, you would have people killing people if they had one more piece of bread then the other.
Fear of god and religion was created to control the masses and was the prerequisite for government and capitalism to work.
Do you think for one second slaves would have sat back and not slaughtered their masters without their fear of god upbringing?
Do you think for one second the 10% of unemployed people who have a few days of unemployment benefits left would just sit by and watch their kids go without food? No, people would kill in a second without the fear of what mite happen to them beyond this life.
-
Whether there is a after life or not, without religion and the fear of punishment in the after life, you would have never gotten this far. Humans would still be living in mud huts ect... because no one would allow there to be anything beyond that. Soon as one person had more the the next, the mob would kill that person. In a society without the fear of god, you would have people killing people if they had one more piece of bread then the other.
Fear of god and religion was created to control the masses and was the prerequisite for government and capitalism to work.
Do you think for one second slaves would have sat back and not slaughtered their masters without their fear of god upbringing?
Do you think for one second the 10% of unemployed people who have a few days of unemployment benefits left would just sit by and watch their kids go without food? No, people would kill in a second without the fear of what mite happen to them beyond this life.
::)
-
Whether there is a after life or not, without religion and the fear of punishment in the after life, you would have never gotten this far. Humans would still be living in mud huts ect... because no one would allow there to be anything beyond that. Soon as one person had more the the next, the mob would kill that person. In a society without the fear of god, you would have people killing people if they had one more piece of bread then the other.
Fear of god and religion was created to control the masses and was the prerequisite for government and capitalism to work.
Do you think for one second slaves would have sat back and not slaughtered their masters without their fear of god upbringing?
Do you think for one second the 10% of unemployed people who have a few days of unemployment benefits left would just sit by and watch their kids go without food? No, people would kill in a second without the fear of what mite happen to them beyond this life.
Yes religion has always been a tool to control the masses.
For dumb people religion can be a good moral compass I guess but education is better.
-
Do you think for one second the 10% of unemployed people who have a few days of unemployment benefits left would just sit by and watch their kids go without food? No, people would kill in a second without the fear of what mite happen to them beyond this life.
This is not true anyways.
In Sweden 85% of the people are atheist (most in the world). The remaining 15% are mostly muslim immigrants. And it's the religious immigrants that commits the most crimes ;)
Our country has alot less crimes/capita than America which is very religious.
So that theory is not true it is the opposite.
-
No ape (apart from homo sapiens) walks entirely upright. I am calling bullshit.
I agree, I never believed but that camping trip flipped me out. No alcohol or drugs were consumed that night. Now if it was a guy dressed in a suit, well he took a chance on being shot. At first we thought it was a guy but then it looked like a big gorrila. And you never do want to shoot thinking it could be a person screwing around. I don't believe in ghosts either but I had two very personal stories that changed my life.
-
"You will never find an atheist in a foxhole..."
or so it goes.
-
This is not true anyways.
In Sweden 85% of the people are atheist (most in the world). The remaining 15% are mostly muslim immigrants. And it's the religious immigrants that commits the most crimes ;)
Our country has alot less crimes/capita than America which is very religious.
So that theory is not true it is the opposite.
An overwhelming majority of criminals are theists.
Of course it is almost proportional to the number of theists in normal society.
-
An overwhelming majority of criminals are theists.
Of course it is almost proportional to the number of theists in normal society.
you have a study that supports this claim?
I know there is a study that shows less than 1% of prison inmates are atheists.
-
you have a study that supports this claim?
I know there is a study that shows less than 1% of prison inmates are atheists.
I've read it in passing somewhere. I can't remember exactly where offhand. It probably wouldn't be too hard to google it though.
-
Hehe. That caught my attention, too. How is it that he hasn't yet been awarded the Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking, I ask you? ;D
lol, the fact he can say these things are a good indication not to take him very serious.
this guy must be lightyears ahead of today scientists and we have him on getbig! the steroids must have gone to his head?
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
So you believe ENERGY dies off?
-
So you believe ENERGY dies off?
What has energy got to do with anything? If by energy you mean the energy that forms the electrical impulses in the brain, no, the energy doesen't die of. Like Newton said, energy is never lost and merely transformed. But if by this you mean that the electrical impulses themselves and the thoughts generated by them survive after death, then it is very obviously false. We know for a fact that the electrical impulses don't survive because a dead brain shows no electrical activity. And since thoughts are communications between brain cells that occur via electrochemical mechanism then it is a safe assumption that thoughts - consciousness, ok - doesen't survive as well.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
You continued your idiotic ramblings as if you didn't notice the video I posted? Either you get us fucking Enstein from the places he abides since his biological death or you jump off the roof as those girls in the video did with ease and then returck back with the report whether there is no afterlife and what most importantly for a fact!!!
-
You continued your idiotic ramblings as if you didn't notice the video I posted? Either you get us fucking Enstein from the places he abides since his biological death or you jump off the roof as those girls in the video did with ease and then returck back with the report whether there is no afterlife and what most importantly for a fact!!!
Did you know that the biggest scientific findings of the last 10 years were actually made on getbig??
All Nobel prize winners post here under names like "suckmymuscle", "Tbombz" or "BigDickedBob".
SMM is way smarter than the rest of the world, he could invent a rocket with lightyear speed in a splitsecond, then use it to fly into his own past and kill his own father so he will never be born, just because he can.
-
Did you know that the biggest scientific findings of the last 10 years were actually made on getbig??
All Nobel prize winners post here under names like "suckmymuscle", "Tbombz" or "BigDickedBob".
SMM is way smarter than the rest of the world, he could invent a rocket with lightyear speed in a splitsecond, then use it to fly into his own past and kill his own father so he will never be born, just because he can.
.
-
You continued your idiotic ramblings as if you didn't notice the video I posted? Either you get us fucking Enstein from the places he abides since his biological death or you jump off the roof as those girls in the video did with ease and then returck back with the report whether there is no afterlife and what most importantly for a fact!!!
Lol, the argument that we don't know what happpens after we die so we can't know either way has been addressed by me several times. If every absurd hypothesis out there requires being disproved no matter the lack of evidence for it and that it defies logic, then empirical science is not viable as a discipline and logic is not valid to describe reality. PS, your video is worthless.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Lol, the argument that we don't know what happpens after we die so we can't know either way has been addressed by me several times. If every absurd hypothesis out there requires being disproved no matter the lack of evidence for it and that it defies logic, then empirical science is not viable as a discipline and logic is not valid to describe reality. PS, your video is worthless.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
What an absurd hypothesis are u talking bout and how do you know for a fact there is no afterlife?
-
What an absurd hypothesis are u talking bout and how do you know for a fact there is no afterlife?
Wow, you're dumb. How do I know there's no afterlife? How do I know there isn't with 100% certainty a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns exist? Let's just put aside evidence that we can infer and deductive logic and consider the possibility of every absurd thing being real unless proven otherwise. :-\
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Wow, you're dumb. How do I know there's no afterlife? How do I know there isn't with 100% certainty a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns exist? Let's just put aside evidence that we can infer and deductive logic and consider the possibility of every absurd thing being real unless proven otherwise. :-\
SUCKMYMUSCLE
There is no evidence of the soon death of yours but it's a fact! You have to reliase the difference between the fact and evidence then come back to me with empirical science, leprechauns, fairies and deductive logic. You're dumb.
-
What about studies proving the opposite hypothesis? Why do you when confronted with two theories, one for which there is no evidence and which goes against probability and deductive logic, and the other for which there is some evidence and is definitely far more reasonably logical, as for proof for the latter but not for the former?
I can be wrong about this just like I can be wrong about the existence of infinite dimensions where everything is possible no matter how ridiculous. Maybe logic is an illusion. Maybe the pre-condition for logic, the existence of contradictions and limits, is something that only applies to our physical reality and there are realms of boundless potential out there where everything is possible because properties relate to each other in manners where contradictions are impossible. Maybe there are realms where logic still aplies but through different axioms where things that are absurd and impossible in our reality are possible. Maybe there are infinite of such dimensions and thus infinite possibilities are completely possible without logic being broken in the total realm of possibility. Who knows? But the physical reality that we live in clearly has boundaries and things that posses inherit contradictions are not possible. And also because our senses can only comprehend reality accepting boundaries - because our though process is deductive and thus works using boundaries to draw conclusion - apossibilites that do not have boundaties are beyond deductive logic and thus beyond our thought processes.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
i know there is no studies proving either way, but if your version of reality was true the world would decend back into the dark ages, people taking what they want, with no regard for life, feelings etc
in my version of reality, people will continue to strive to be good, because at the very least even if there is no afterlife the world would be a better place because we are trying to help each other.
i believe buddhas version of reality for what it's worth.
-
There is no evidence of the soon death of yours but it's a fact! You have to reliase the difference between the fact and evidence then come back to me with empirical science, leprechauns, fairies and deductive logic. You're dumb.
You asked a stupid question that I already answered several times before, so don't blame me for lashing out at you.
Again, what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife? All that we know about consciousness indicates that it is a product of the Human brain and thus it probably doesen't survive death.
Why should I prove that there isn't an afterlife? Like Cicero once said, when two conflicting claims are made, the one that is the most unlikely one is the one that has the burden of proof.
If I have to prove that there isn't an afterlife, then I also need to prove wrong every absurd idea that anyone can come up with. Why stop at an afterlife? Why don't you ask me to prove that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real?
There are a billion hypothesis that are possible but extremely unlikely and for which proving that they are wrong with 100% certainty is impossible. This is the reason why we use inference from the data we have and make deductions using logic and plausibility to draw conclusions about the feasibility of theories for which we can never know for sure. Like I have said before, in the case of an afterlife plausible deniability for the validity of it is adequate. The burden of proof lies on you not me...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
i know there is no studies proving either way, but if your version of reality was true the world would decend back into the dark ages, people taking what they want, with no regard for life, feelings etc
This is nonsense. Atheists are the most moral people there is: they commit the lowest rates of homicides and have the lowest arrest rates of any population.
You are basically saying that Human Beings are so evil that they will only behave morally if they know they will be punished severely for misbehaving. This might be true for sociopaths, but most people would follow Confucius golden rule of treating others like you would like to be treated.
I can actually use the opposite argument of yours: that the belief in God and an afterlife makes people less moral. Yep, because if you believe that death is not the end of all, then killing someone is not a big deal since they are going to Heaven anyway. On the other side, if you believe that death is the end, then it makes murder and harming others far more horrifying.
And you are missing the point. This is completely besides the point. So we should believe a lie because it helps with social order? I disagree with it. There are sociopaths and mentally unstable people for whom religion stops them from doing harm to others. This is true. But I don't think that people should believe a lie just because it makes Society more orderly. Just think of all the evil that is done in the name of God. Think of all the people burned alive by the inquisition during the Middle Ages or all those terrorists who blow up toddlers because they think that God wants them to. Yes, religion stops some sociopaths from killing, but it compels many more to kill, so the net worth of religion is a negative one.
in my version of reality, people will continue to strive to be good, because at the very least even if there is no afterlife the world would be a better place because we are trying to help each other.
I agree with this ok. But why do we need religion for this? Why can't we be nice to each other just because we don't want others to feel what we wouldn't want to feel ourselves? Why do you think we should only be nice because otherwise God will punish us?
i believe buddhas version of reality for what it's worth.
Buddha was an enlightened man, but his version of reality was a primitive understanding. You can't expect more from someone who lived 2,500 years ago.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Look up the definition of 'conscience' versus 'consciousness' you idiot. And its 'phenomenon,' not 'phenom' you fucking genius. And I admitted to my own PREVIOUS misspellings, so your point is MOOT, not 'mute,' yet again... I didn't misspell it in my post. I was merely trying to use the proper words in the conversation; spellings are a different matter, and definitely not something i was concerned about ::)
If you're gonna try to appear smart, and a know-it-all then atleast use the proper words, genius.
I don't know much about the subject, but I've heard of people being resuscitated after being clinically dead (whatever that means). Some of them have reported being conscious (but in a different state), and have even reported being able to observe themselves and their surrounding from above while still 'unconscious' (and accurately so, as far as i know).
You really start to get mad right HERE.
-
You asked a stupid question that I already answered several times before, so don't blame me for lashing out at you.
Again, what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife? All that we know about consciousness indicates that it is a product of the Human brain and thus it probably doesen't survive death.
Why should I prove that there isn't an afterlife? Like Cicero once said, when two conflicting claims are made, the one that is the most unlikely one is the one that has the burden of proof.
If I have to prove that there isn't an afterlife, then I also need to prove wrong every absurd idea that anyone can come up with. Why stop at an afterlife? Why don't you ask me to prove that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real?
There are a billion hypothesis that are possible but extremely unlikely and for which proving that they are wrong with 100% certainty is impossible. This is the reason why we use inference from the data we have and make deductions using logic and plausibility to draw conclusions about the feasibility of theories for which we can never know for sure. Like I have said before, in the case of an afterlife plausible deniability for the validity of it is adequate. The burden of proof lies on you not me...
SUCKMYMUSCLE
1 Again, what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife?
2 Why should I prove that there isn't an afterlife?
3 Why stop at an afterlife? Why don't you ask me to prove that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real?
4 The burden of proof lies on you not me
5 I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.
You're dumb. You are from USA and black?
-
1 Again, what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife?
2 Why should I prove that there isn't an afterlife?
3 Why stop at an afterlife? Why don't you ask me to prove that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real?
4 The burden of proof lies on you not me
5 I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.
You're dumb. You are from USA and black?
Seriously, your condescending attitude doesen't suit you, because you are clearly a stupid person. I ask you, why you waste time in this debate? All this stuff is clearly way over your head.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Seriously, your condescending attitude doesen't suit you, because you are clearly a stupid person. I ask you, why you waist time in this debate? All this stuff is clearly way over your head.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Prodigy is good, right black guy?
-
1 Again, what evidence do you have that there is an afterlife?
2 Why should I prove that there isn't an afterlife?
3 Why stop at an afterlife? Why don't you ask me to prove that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real?
4 The burden of proof lies on you not me
5 I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.
You're dumb. You are from USA and black?
Your English grammar has improved greatly. Good job.
-
Your English grammar has improved greatly. Good job.
Hi! Who do you think it might be talking to me on Arpril 16'th 2010? ;D
This is the last time I respond to you Quackzilla.
-
Lol, the argument that we don't know what happpens after we die so we can't know either way has been addressed by me several times. If every absurd hypothesis out there requires being disproved no matter the lack of evidence for it and that it defies logic, then empirical science is not viable as a discipline and logic is not valid to describe reality. PS, your video is worthless.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
actually broham empirical science says that disproving the null does not prove the alternative...
so yes you do need to prove your stance not simply disprove the opposing stance
but hey dont let me get in the way of your psuedo science ;)
-
Hi! Who do you think it might be talking to me on Arpril 16'th 2010? ;D
LOL!
You win!
-
actually broham empirical science says that disproving the null does not prove the alternative...
so yes you do need to prove your stance not simply disprove the opposing stance
but hey dont let me get in the way of your psuedo science ;)
So do I also need to disprove every absurd idea anyone can up with to describe reality with 100% certainty and just ignore all inferential evidence to the contrary, all common sense and deductive logic that tells me that trying to disprove something so absurd is a waste of time?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
So do I also need to disprove every absurd idea anyone can up with to describe reality with 100% certainty and just ignore all inferential evidence to the contrary, all common sense and deductive logic that tells me that trying to disprove something so absurd is a waste of time?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
LOL why dont you stop concentrating on disproving their theory and concentrate proving your own?
lol youre the one who brought up empirical science...you can say in your opinion but you cant say that science says this...b/c as I stated in science disproving the null doesnt prove the alternative...
if you want to restate your theory then fine but dont quote scientific methods and then turn around and say ahhh i am going to ignore that part ::)
what you have by "disproving" their theory is essentially falling in the grey area instead youre saying well its not this so it must be this without providing proof of that...
when in fact it relegates the conclusion back to the unknown... ;)
-
This is nonsense. Atheists are the most moral people there is: they commit the lowest rates of homicides and have the lowest arrest rates of any population.
You are basically saying that Human Beings are so evil that they will only behave morally if they know they will be punished severely for misbehaving. This might be true for sociopaths, but most people would follow Confucius golden rule of treating others like you would like to be treated.
I can actually use the opposite argument of yours: that the belief in God and an afterlife makes people less moral. Yep, because if you believe that death is not the end of all, then killing someone is not a big deal since they are going to Heaven anyway. On the other side, if you believe that death is the end, then it makes murder and harming others far more horrifying.
And you are missing the point. This is completely besides the point. So we should believe a lie because it helps with social order? I disagree with it. There are sociopaths and mentally unstable people for whom religion stops them from doing harm to others. This is true. But I don't think that people should believe a lie just because it makes Society more orderly. Just think of all the evil that is done in the name of God. Think of all the people burned alive by the inquisition during the Middle Ages or all those terrorists who blow up toddlers because they think that God wants them to. Yes, religion stops some sociopaths from killing, but it compels many more to kill, so the net worth of religion is a negative one.
I agree with this ok. But why do we need religion for this? Why can't we be nice to each other just because we don't want others to feel what we wouldn't want to feel ourselves? Why do you think we should only be nice because otherwise God will punish us?
Buddha was an enlightened man, but his version of reality was a primitive understanding. You can't expect more from someone who lived 2,500 years ago.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
you said we should take what we want etc. thats why i said humans would decend into the dark ages if everyone thought that way.
also i disagree with buddha, every one of his teachings are still relevant today. he spoke about things that science is only now finding out are true.
-
Hehe. That caught my attention, too. How is it that he hasn't yet been awarded the Nobel Prize for super-duper thinking, I ask you? ;D
because philosophers have kknown and wrote about god and the reason(s) why he is absolutely necessary for thousands of years.. this is nothing new
-
What has energy got to do with anything? If by energy you mean the energy that forms the electrical impulses in the brain, no, the energy doesen't die of. Like Newton said, energy is never lost and merely transformed. But if by this you mean that the electrical impulses themselves and the thoughts generated by them survive after death, then it is very obviously false. We know for a fact that the electrical impulses don't survive because a dead brain shows no electrical activity. And since thoughts are communications between brain cells that occur via electrochemical mechanism then it is a safe assumption that thoughts - consciousness, ok - doesen't survive as well.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Consciousness is made up of energy
-
Consciousness is made up of energy
What evidence do you have of this? Define consciousness and then explain why it is made of energy. No one know what consciousness is in a metaphysical sense, but we do know the physical processes that give origin to it and energy only plays a role in that thoughts are communications between brain cells, and that those communications happens with electrical impulses(energy).
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
LOL why dont you stop concentrating on disproving their theory and concentrate proving your own?
lol youre the one who brought up empirical science...you can say in your opinion but you cant say that science says this...b/c as I stated in science disproving the null doesnt prove the alternative...
if you want to restate your theory then fine but dont quote scientific methods and then turn around and say ahhh i am going to ignore that part
what you have by "disproving" their theory is essentially falling in the grey area instead youre saying well its not this so it must be this without providing proof of that...
when in fact it relegates the conclusion back to the unknown... ;)
I have a better idea. Why don't you ask me to prove that we don't live in a holographic universe or that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies are real? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
because philosophers have kknown and wrote about god and the reason(s) why he is absolutely necessary for thousands of years.. this is nothing new
You could easily replace 'necessary' with 'unnecessary' and have the same number of philosophical arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
-
You could easily replace 'necessary' with 'unnecessary' and have the same number of philosophical arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God
I do really think that you are more intelligent than suckmymuscle dude so I reply to you. That wikipidia article covers nothing, should we go by copy and paste sentences or one would be out of context? ;)
-
I do really think that you are more intelligent than suckmymuscle dude so I reply to you. That wikipidia article covers nothing, should we go by copy and paste sentences or one would be out of context? ;)
The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.
-
The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.
I seen your picks from the my picks, guns n roses rule, You hit 40's, so it'll be fun. Let's see how debate goes, there is no debate for me though, but what angle? Speedy recovery from a car crash
-
Haven't kept up w/this thread. Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife? Reply # please?
-
Haven't kept up w/this thread. Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife? Reply # please?
no
-
no
Thanks onlyone. I will try to read it all later. Maybe he will post his fact by then.
-
I seen your picks from the my picks, guns n roses rule, You hit 40's, so it'll be fun. Let's see how debate goes, there is no debate for me though, but what angle? Speedy recovery from a car crash
;D
-
I could discuss a true incident where I was able to receive the voice of a deceased loved one on a casette recorder very clearly, 3 separate times..also known as an EVP. It was very clear and was responding directly to something I said. The family of the person agreed the voice was identical..and I had it verified as an actual genuine EVP from the president of the Electronic Voice Phenomenon association. I won't cheapen this profound experience by debating it on this site, but I will add that the experience has led me to believe that our consciousness does survive physical death. I do not feel the need however, to follow any type of formal religion. I just believe that there is an energy that survives death and that it can can contain at least a remnant of the deceased person's consciousness.
-
I do really think that you are more intelligent than suckmymuscle dude so I reply to you. That wikipidia article covers nothing, should we go by copy and paste sentences or one would be out of context? ;)
I'm surely offended that you think that. Let me ask you a question: I am unintelligent according to you, and yet I soundly defeated you in this debate and made you tap out of embarassment. So how stupid does that make you ???
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The article contains the most common philosophical arguments both for, and against, the existence of god, which was in response to tbombz statement. There is no consensus amongst philosophers that god must necessarily exist. It's an open ended debate.
There is a consensus among philosophers that God must exist? Oh, really? Here is a hint for you: most analytical philosophers are atheist. Most philosophers by necessity use empirical science to drive their questioning, and most of them who come up with TOEs(theories of everything) use knowledge of physics to create the axioms of their TOEs. I have an old friend of mine who teaches philosophy at Oxford, David Pearce, and he would laugh at your claim that most philosophers are theistic.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Haven't kept up w/this thread. Has suck posted his fact proving there is no afterlife? Reply # please?
Do you want me to also post the facts disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real? Do you want me to post evidence that we do not live in a holographic universe? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?
Let's consider the possibility of everything that anyone can imagine being real unless proven otherwise. No matter the lack of evidence and how absurd it is from a logical deduction point of view, you guys will consider the possibility of anything being possible unless proven otherwise. Pathetic.
We cannot guide our thinking negating logic. The plausibility of a theory must depend on the inferential evidence that we can gather to prove it and how plausible logic tells us that it is.
I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
the best philosophers and scientists throughout history have all believed in god. modern philosophers are poisoned with extremist pragmatism they inhereted by adopting the emperical method at the expense of all rational thought. the two work best together, not seperate.
-
the best philosophers and scientists throughout history have all believed in god.
This was true of most philosophers and scientists during the Middle Ages and the Enlightenement(Newton, Gallileo, etcetera), but it is no longer true today. Most modern scientists are atheists. And how is this relevant? A philosopher believing or not in God is irrelevant because belief is not proof and or evidence.
modern philosophers are poisoned with extremist pragmatism they inhereted by adopting the emperical method at the expense of all rational thought.
This makes absolutely no sense. How are the empirical method and rational thought dichotomous? I'm sorry to break this to you, but the empirical method is rational thought. It is based on experiment and observation of reality and testing the cause and effect of given variable by eliminating extraneous variables. Pure rational...thought.
the two work best together, not seperate.
LMAO...since one(the empirical method) cannot exist without being the other(rational thought), then the two cannot be separate things. LMAO...one cannot work without the other by definition because one fits the definition of the other. You fail at logic. :-X
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I have a better idea. Why don't you ask me to prove that we don't live in a holographic universe or that there isn't a magical dimension where fairies are real? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?
SUCKMYMUSCLE
LMAO I agree with you but you see you brought up empirical science brain child...
you dont have any proof of their being no after life, you simply use the lack of proof as your evidence...
empirical science says that not proving the null doesnt prove the alternative...let me know if you need me to elaborate on that b/c its obvious youre not getting it...
ever heard of russells tea pot? look it up, it basically says that the person who makes the ascertion has the onus of proving that ascertion...now you say their is no afterlife...prove it...a lack of proof for an afterlife isnt proof against one its proof that its unknown whether there is one or not...
science is a bitch isnt it? :D ;)
-
Do you want me to also post the facts disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies and leprechauns are real? Do you want me to post evidence that we do not live in a holographic universe? Why stop at disproving the afterlife?
Let's consider the possibility of everything that anyone can imagine being real unless proven otherwise. No matter the lack of evidence and how absurd it is from a logical deduction point of view, you guys will consider the possibility of anything being possible unless proven otherwise. Pathetic.
We cannot guide our thinking negating logic. The plausibility of a theory must depend on the inferential evidence that we can gather to prove it and how plausible logic tells us that it is.
I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
why should anyone feel the need to prove there is an afterlife then? after all you cant disprove it only give us your view that there is a lack of evidence...
dont get mad bro, its not like we are saying this SCIENCE is saying this...if you have a problem with this then you have a problem with science not us...
do you understand the relationship between the null and alternative hypothesis? apparently you do not b/c if you did you would know that lack of proof for one stance isnt proof for the opposing stance...
again thats science bro...plain and simple I know its hard for you to wrap your head around it but do some research and you shall see
-
Did the guy that is smarter than every scientist that ever lived on this earth post the fact yet?
Scientific proof that can be reproduced by anyone in a scientific experiment?
-
There is a consensus among philosophers that God must exist? Oh, really? Here is a hint for you: most analytical philosophers are atheist. Most philosophers by necessity use empirical science to drive their questioning, and most of them who come up with TOEs(theories of everything) use knowledge of physics to create the axioms of their TOEs. I have an old friend of mine who teaches philosophy at Oxford, David Pearce, and he would laugh at your claim that most philosophers are theistic.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
If you're responding to me, you misread my post.
-
I'm surely offended that you think that. Let me ask you a question: I am unintelligent according to you, and yet I soundly defeated you in this debate and made you tap out of embarassment. So how stupid does that make you ???
SUCKMYMUSCLE
How is it tell us please. I don't no how. I and butterbean are waiting you posting the fact that there is no afterlife. By the way we are waiting you posting the fact that fairies don't exist
-
I have already said that disproving the existence of a magical dimension where fairies are real is unnecessary because there is no evidence that such beings exist and a dimension where such beings could exist - beings that can walk through walls and don't need to eat - are inconceivable to us because we cannot logically imagine a dimension where the laws of physics and biology as we know it don't apply, and we cannot logically conceive by which laws of physics if any such dimension would work, and if it works like that because there are no laws controlling the interaction between things in such dimension, meaning that everything there is possible, then logic doesen't apply there and we cannot conceive of it because our thinking is deductive and thus requires logic to make conclusions. Understand? Well, probably not. Anyway, all this applies to disproving an afterlife.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Actually it doesn't.
Are you rejecting the possibility of a "magical dimension" based on either having our laws of physics and biology or having no laws at all? Doesn't that either/or seem illogical?
The title of your thread is "I Know for Fact There's No AFterlife. We are just waiting for the fact.
-
I never would use the word 'fact';
I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.
-
I never would use the word 'fact';
I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.
Yep.
-
I never would use the word 'fact';
I say it is highly (almost impossible) unlikely there is any such dimension and leave it at that.
its also highly unlikely and almost impossible that we came from nothing as well ;) :D ;D
-
its also highly unlikely and almost impossible that we came from nothing as well ;) :D ;D
Wrong.
http://bit.ly/bWqHHD
-
Wrong.
http://bit.ly/bWqHHD
Didn't we already come to the conclusion (reefer bubbles and all ;D) there is no such thing as nothing ???
-
Didn't we already come to the conclusion (reefer bubbles and all ;D) there is no such thing as nothing ???
Correct.
Quantum foam. Quantum fluctuation.
-
Wrong.
http://bit.ly/bWqHHD
LMAO just b/c you can come up with a theory doesnt mean it isnt highly unlikely and almost impossible...
this is only what the n^th theory now? each one is almost impossible and highly unlikely...
didnt say it was impossible but almost impossible just like deicide said ;)
-
LMAO just b/c you can come up with a theory doesnt mean it isnt highly unlikely and almost impossible...
this is only what the n^th theory now? each one is almost impossible and highly unlikely...
didnt say it was impossible but almost impossible just like deicide said ;)
Replace 'almost impossible' for 'high possibility' and you're a little closer to hitting the mark. Current conclusions are only made after data/calculations has been rigorously tested and retested, again and again and again. Then corroborated by many different sources. It's still a matter of progressive elaboration. The more we know the more refined the conclusions become. The Large Hadron Collider should shed even more light on this subject.
The odds that consciousness continues after death is next to zilch. Zero data, zero evidence, nothing. No reason to give any credence whatsoever to the notion.
-
Forget about the body of the man who died, key is the part of the universe that expands faster than the speed of light, search afterlife in that part of the universe.
-
The Large Hadron Collider should shed even more
Didn't you know that Russia is gonna build a still larger hadron collider than the current one in Europe? How bout USA?
-
Replace 'almost impossible' for 'high possibility' and you're a little closer to hitting the mark. Current conclusions are only made after data/calculations has been rigorously tested and retested, again and again and again. Then corroborated by many different sources. It's still a matter of progressive elaboration. The more we know the more refined the conclusions become. The Large Hadron Collider should shed even more light on this subject.
The odds that consciousness continues after death is next to zilch. Zero data, zero evidence, nothing. No reason to give any credence whatsoever to the notion.
Religious people give credence to things, not based on what is likely, but on what makes them feel secure and good; thus rational argument generally does not work with them.
-
Ah, my stalker is here. Missed you too, "Donkey".
Did the guy that is smarter than every scientist that ever lived on this earth post the fact yet?
Where have I claimed to be smarter than every scientist who ever lived? And by saying that I think I am smarter than them, you are implying by default that we are in disagreement, when in reality most scientists are atheists and do not believe in an afterlife. Some scientists did believe in God and an afterlife, but that's only because centuries ago the amount of scientific knowledge we had was so small compared to what we have now that it was almost impossible not to believe in God and an afterlife.
Scientific proof that can be reproduced by anyone in a scientific experiment?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an afterlife. Like Cicero once said, the burden of proof is on those who make a claim. Plausible deniability based on lack of evidence for a hypothesis and based on what logical deduction from the data we can infer tells us does not require proof.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
How is it tell us please. I don't no how. I and butterbean are waiting you posting the fact that there is no afterlife. By the way we are waiting you posting the fact that fairies don't exist
See why I can't have a debate with you? It's like arguing with an ape or a child with ADHD. I won't answer your vitriole further. I will only reply to people who don't keep asking the same questions en absurdum and who have interesting and valid points to make.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
If you're responding to me, you misread my post.
You are right, kind Sir. I apologize. Anyway, my reply is valid for "Tbombz".
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Ah, my stalker is here. Missed you too, "Donkey".
Where have I claimed to be smarter than every scientist who ever lived? And by saying that I think I am smarter than them, you are implying by default that we are in disagreement, when in reality most scientists are atheists and do not believe in an afterlife. Some scientists did believe in God and an afterlife, but that's only because centuries ago the amount of scientific knowledge we had was so small compared to what we have now that it was almost impossible not to believe in God and an afterlife.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an afterlife. Like Cicero once said, the burden of proof is on those who make a claim. Plausible deniability based on lack of evidence for hypothesis and based on what logical deduction from the data we can infer tells us does not require proof.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
if that would have been possible scientists (whom do you call scientist? the ones who don't know a thing about God or an afterlife automatically become scientist?) would have already proved that there is no god/afterlife. If you label yourself a wanna be scientist please prove that there is no afterlife. Once you do call me asap you'll become a millionaire
You got me! Normally I don't debate with idiots...
-
LMAO I agree with you but you see you brought up empirical science brain child...
you dont have any proof of their being no after life, you simply use the lack of proof as your evidence...
empirical science says that not proving the null doesnt prove the alternative...let me know if you need me to elaborate on that b/c its obvious youre not getting it...
ever heard of russells tea pot? look it up, it basically says that the person who makes the ascertion has the onus of proving that ascertion...now you say their is no afterlife...prove it...a lack of proof for an afterlife isnt proof against one its proof that its unknown whether there is one or not...
science is a bitch isnt it? :D ;)
You misunderstood me. I am not using the scientific method to disprove an afterlife; I am using the scientific method to make the point that things that are untestable hypothesis because they lack the logical and factual evidence that would allow us to test it's validity does not make these hypothesis possible just because we cannot disprove it. I am using the empirical evidence simply as plausible deniability and not as absolute proof.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
why should anyone feel the need to prove there is an afterlife then? after all you cant disprove it only give us your view that there is a lack of evidence...
Because it is you who is making the claim that something exists, not me. I am simply denying the existence of something for which there is no evidence and for which logical deduction based on the data we do have available to understand the phenomena of coonsciousness indicates that it probably does not survive the physiological destruction of the brain at death. Cicero once made that point, that between two conflicting claims, the one less likely is the one that demands proof. Why should I have to prove the existence of an afterlife and not the existence of leprechauns, fairies and pink unicorns?
dont get mad bro, its not like we are saying this SCIENCE is saying this...if you have a problem with this then you have a problem with science not us...
Science says that odds are that I am right, so I have no idea what you are babbling about. Let's see, I have evidence and the logical deductions about the probability of consciousness surviving death on my side. What do you have? You have absolutely nothing.
do you understand the relationship between the null and alternative hypothesis? apparently you do not b/c if you did you would know that lack of proof for one stance isnt proof for the opposing stance...
Sure, the existence of an afterlife is an alternate hypothesis to the one that there is no afterlife, but which is more plausible? We can say that the mathematical probability based on inferential data and deductive logic of your hypothesis is so low as to be virtually null.
again thats science bro...plain and simple I know its hard for you to wrap your head around it but do some research and you shall see
You are kidding? You can't possibly be serious with this shit.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Actually it doesn't.
It is impossible to disprove with 100% certainty the existence of an afterlife for the following reasons:
- The existence of an afterlife is not a testable hypothesis, because no one has ever defined what consciousness is besides the basic mechanistic definition that it is electro-chemical data-processing in the brain, and no method to detect whatever it is besides electrochemical impulses in the brain, if it is anything besides this, has been created to detect it's continued existence after the physiological annihilation of the brain.
- Based on the logical deductions we can make based on the data we can infer, the probability of consciousness surviving the physiological cessation of brain functioning is nul. Since consciousness has only ever been demonstrated to exist in people who have brains and since consciousness has never been seen on people born without brains or who are severely brain damaged, then we can conclude that there is no variable responsible for consciousness extrinsic to the brain otherwise brainless people would exhibit consciousness.
- We cannot conceive the logical branching tree that would allow us to understand existence of consciousness without the existence of the brain, because we cannot conceive the variables that could be responsible for consciousness besides the electrochemical mechanism that gives rise to it. We cannot "solve" the problem of whether consciousness exists besides the brain because we cannot solve a problem for which the axioms are unknown, just like a physicist cannot determine the rate of temperature change in an object exposed to heat if he does not know the intensity of the heat being applied to the object and how thermally resistent the object in case is. Problems with axioms that are unknown cannot be solved.
Are you rejecting the possibility of a "magical dimension" based on either having our laws of physics and biology or having no laws at all? Doesn't that either/or seem illogical?
How is either/or illogical? Solving contradictions is the very definition of logic. Let me explain what I meant. We cannot conceive of an universe where beings can walk through walls defying the laws of physics or can survive without food, defying the laws of biology, because it goes against the logic of our universe, the only one we know to exist. Since this is the only universe we know to exist and since things work here in this way, an universe where things works differently is implausible given our logic and reason. So we must deny the existence of such an universe until we can comprehend it by laws that make sense in our reality. My second point is if that those things are possible there because logic doesen't apply there, then it is pointless talking about it because our thought is deductive and we can make no deductions about the properties of a system/universe where logic doesen't apply.
The title of your thread is "I Know for Fact There's No AFterlife. We are just waiting for the fact.
Post one fact proving an afterlife and I will post a fact proving the non-existence of an afterlife. The burden of proof is on you. You are the one claiming that something exists. I am simply denying until evidence is presented or until consciousness is proven to exist besides the electrochemical processing of the brain and a plausible logical mechanism for why this penomena does not require the brain to exist is proven despite all evidence to the contrary. Good luck.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
IF the human brain repeatedly pound with hammer it doesn't survive which proves that there is no afterlife
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
logic
How does logic say that the existence of God is inevitable? Actually, of the trillion trillion trillion trillion possibilities for the origin of the Universe, having a magical being who created everything at the beggining is one of the least probable.
causal chain.
What has this got to do with anything? Everything that exists is logically explicable by processes of derivation - hydrogen atoms fuse and give birth to other atoms: Carbon atoms form long chains that give birth to living organisms, which through a process of natural selection result in Human Beings. The only cause that is not derivative is the birth of the Universe. And again, how does postulating a magic being at the beggining solve anything?
infinitely complex universe, infitely complex constituents of the universe.
What? The Universe is not infinitely complex. Actually, the amount of information in the Universe is limited. For instance, everything that exists is derived from slightly over 100 elements. By definition, not everything is possible and the Universe does not have infinite properties, so the amount of information in the Universe is limited. I don't really understand what you mean by information here. If you mean the information regarding the workings of the Universe and it's constituents, then the information is limited.
material substance (mass/energy) that is completely incomprehensible from any angle or view point. and other things.
Actually, matter and energy are very well understood. Energy is defined in physics as the capacity to produce work, and we know a lot about matter: that it is made of particles, that it can be transformed through chemical reactions, etc.
If you mean that it cannot be understood intrinsically as an end of/means to describe existence in a metaphysical sense, then I agree with you. No one knows what the ultimate nature of reality is and what matter and energy truly are intrinsically - metaphysically. But it is certainly not "completely incomprehensible" from a strictu sensu definition of it physically.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Really, SMM, you're the smartest guy on the board.
Why do you waste your time with all the idiots here, you should be out there lecturing some professors and destroy some scientists in podium discussions.
You could make millions with your wisdom and intelligence, publish a book or two each year that will be bestsellers, i.e. "Bear vs. Lion -- The conflict that changed the earth".
-
Really, SMM, you're the smartest guy on the board.
Why do you waste your time with all the idiots here, you should be out there lecturing some professors and destroy some scientists in podium discussions.
You could make millions with your wisdom and intelligence, publish a book or two each year that will be bestsellers, i.e. "Bear vs. Lion -- The conflict that changed the earth".
don't let it worry your simple mind.
-
don't let it worry your simple mind.
Oh sorry that i insulted you, YOU are by far the smartest muscle machine on this board!!
-
SUCKHISMUSCLE suddenly has ceased posting? Did he already voice out his fact?
-
Oh sorry that i insulted you, YOU are by far the smartest muscle machine on this board!!
fair enough.
you are forgiven.
-
SUCKHISMUSCLE suddenly has ceased posting? Did he already voice out his fact?
He's afraid that Fatpanda chimed in, the only person on the planet that is more muscular and smarter than SMD.
-
don't things in nature always happen repeatedly?
scientifically
we've all been dead before and we were all born
why won't we be reborn after we die this time?
-
don't things in nature always happen repeatedly?
scientifically
we've all been dead before and we were all born
why won't we be reborn after we die this time?
We may have been dead before but who was an initial creator?
-
We may have been dead before but who was an initial creator?
i dont know
i just know that we were dead once, then alive, we'll be dead again, then alive.....
why not?
-
i dont know
i just know that we were dead once, then alive, we'll be dead again, then alive.....
why not?
We don't know whether the afterlife exists but that is how the intelligent man would think. Not an intelligent one would think once we dead that's it it's a fact...
-
So why do some people believe in God ??? A belief in an afterlife is tragic, because lots of people give up living this life, the only one that they'll ever have, in hopes that they will be awarded some reward for believing in an arbitrary and anachronistic moral code in their lives. Accept:
- That you are stupid.
- That your shitty life could be much worse and dying is much worst than even the worst life imaginable.
- That the way out from your shitty life(suicide) is much worse as you have nothing to look forward in the afterlife.
- That since there's no afterlife, there is no reason to pull back and stop doing what you have to do make life as good as possible in the one life you'll ever have.
- That intelligent, capable people ARE better than you, and that your shitty life would be much shittier without them - they cure your diseases which prolongs your life and they create the technology that makes your life better. You can be sure that your life would be infinitely worse without the highly intelligent. So treat them as your superiors.
- That what you religious freaks consider paradise is very selfish. You behave kindly so that you will be rewarded with all the things that you deam beneath you in this life in the afterlife.
- Since there is no difference between your idea of paradise and having a good life on Earth, then why wait and not just build a good life here?
- This would be the case even if there were an afterlife, but since there isn't, then it is more reason to do it here.
- That your idea of God is what we Humans are destined to become in the distant future: omniscient, omnipotent, immortal beings.
- Unfortunately this won't save your inferior ass since we are billions and maybe trillions of years away from becoming God.
- Make the most of your life. Paradise is having the best possible life and being the closest to the ideal of being God as possible. Enjoy.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Christopher Michael Langan has the highest I.Q in the U.S(190+), and he believes in God. However, his argument for the belief in God is so extraordinarily intellectually sophisticated that theists would be disappointed, because the kind of God that he believes in is not teleological at all, but a kind of dynamic process of identification and definition. He bases it on the self-containment paradox, which has troubled mathematicians for centuries, and he argues that the only way to understand God is to assume that logic plays the same role in reality as axioms in mathematics., and that reality itself is more a matter of perception, which is tied in definition, then really of inductive and deductive logic. Everyone who tries to challenge him gets owned, even Nobelists in physics, because the man has a brain roughly twice the size of a normal person.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
SUCKHISMUSCLE suddenly has ceased posting? Did he already voice out his fact?
You are so childish and stupid. I am actually embarassed for you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
don't things in nature always happen repeatedly?
scientifically
What do you mean? If you mean that the laws of physics and chemistry are constants, then yes: throwing a rock up will laways result in it falling down. Burning Iron will always result in the formation of Ferrous Oxide, etc. If you mean that because we were once dead - nice alliteration for non-existence btw - and then we were alive we will someday be reborn after we die, then you are wrong.
we've all been dead before and we were all born
If you are using the word dead as a metaphor and/or aliteration for non-existence, then I agree with you. Otherwise, friend, the word dead here is nothing more than semantic babbling to imply something that you think is different from what I am implying but is actually the same thing.
why won't we be reborn after we die this time?
What evidence do you have that we will be reborn? What do you mean by "we"? The soul? Please define what the soul is and show how it exists independently from the electrochemical workings of the brain which so far is the only thing we know to responsible for our consciousness.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
I said that not directing it specifically at theists but people in general, although theists do tend to be not smart. And did you read my whole post? I state that there are some very smart theists, but the difference between the smart theists and your average traditional religionist theist is that the smart theists come up with logical, elaborate arguments for the existence of God and they use evidence to back up their claims, whilst the religionist uses the argument of divine revelation and when pressed for supplying any evidence for the existence of God they point out at the Universe as if the only explanation possible for the origin of the Universe were an omnipotent intelligent entity at the beggining that created everything. That is, out of the trillions of possible explanations for why something and not nothing exists, they believe that a magical entity with infinite powers is the only explantion possible.
I think it is one of the least probable explanations. Theists seem to assume because relity has an elaborate design, and that because a design requires planning and therefeore intelligence, that only something possesed of intelligence could have created the Universe. This is not true. Everything that exists that is elaborate is the result of aggregation from very simple things from processes of synthesis and derivation. For instance, Helium is formed by nuclear fusion of Hydrogen atoms. Heavier elements are formed until Carbon is made. Carbon has four nuclear bonds, which allows it to form long chains of complex molecules, which, through a process of blind selection, results in greater complex life forms.
Now, you could argue that if we reduce all the complexity of the Universe to simpler and simpler things, we eventually arrive at the origin of everything, which is a an incognita. We don't know what this cause is, but given the fact that everything that exists comes from simpler and simpler things progressively, then this initial cause should be by definition the simplest thing of all. It shouldn't be a complicated entity like God. The initial cause would be by the very definition the least intelligent property in the Universe since all higher complexity is derived from this initial cause. So the real question is this: can something that is possesed of even the slightest amount of intelligence arrise from nothing? Even the initial cause has some degree of complexity, even if nothing more than a pure axiomatic definition so the real question is whether intelligence requires itself or not to exist. If the answer is yes, then you could call this self-organizitaion process a form of self-awareness which could be called God. If not then there i no reason to assume the existnce of God.
Most physicists believe that the initial axiom from which everything else derives could have arrisen from nothing(the uncertainty principle), so there is no reason to assume an intelligence that begetted everything. However, I believe that the initial cause could require a self-organizing principle whcih could be called God, so I don't rule out the possibility of God. I am 90% atheistic and 10% agnostic. However, this god would be so radically different from the one of religious people that the fact that there could be this possibility does not prove the existence of God in the way most religious people believe in him.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Is the man still alive if his head ripped off, heart on the street and still beating?
-
Is the man still alive if his head ripped off, heart on the street and still beating?
Depends on what you define here by "the man" being alive. If you mean his personality or ego, then no, since a brain without Oxygen and blood supply cannot function. If by being alive you mean if a part of the man's body is alive, then yes, since his heart is still beating and thus is living tissue. This is an issue of semantics and definition. Ludwig Wiittgenstein would agree.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
a brain without Oxygen and blood supply cannot function - that proves that there is no afterlife
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
a brain without Oxygen and blood supply cannot function - that proves that there is no afterlife
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Nice strawman, you dipshit. You asked whether a man with his head cut of but with a heart that is still beating is still alive and I answered your question. Too bad you didn't like the answer.
And yes, a brain without Oxygen cannot function, and I am not saying it proves that there is no afterlife; I am saying that since what you call "I" or your ego results from the electrochemical processing between neurons, and since neurons require Oxygen to live, then ergo a brain without Oxygen dies and so does the person's personality.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Nice strawman, you dipshit. You asked whether a man with his head cut of but with a heart that is still beating is still alive and I answered your question. Too bad you didn't like the answer.
And yes, a brain without Oxygen cannot function, and I am not saying it proves that there is no afterlife; I am saying that since what you call "I" or your ego results from the electrochemical processing between neurons, and since neurons require Oxygen to live, then ergo a brain without Oxygen dies and so does the person's personality.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
There is no personality visible because the brain without oxygen dies, no electrochemical processing between neurons occurs and I am not saying it proves that there is no afterlife but I know for a fact - there is no afterlife. Too bad you didn't like the answer.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
There is no personality visible because the brain without oxygen dies, no electrochemical processing between neurons occurs and I am not saying it proves that there is no afterlife but I know for a fact - there is no afterlife. Too bad you didn't like the answer.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
Can you prove that Human personality is anything more than electrochemical impulses between neurons? If not, then STFU and accept that the end of the brain means the end of the person's self.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Can you prove that Human personality is anything more than electrochemical impulses between neurons? If not, then STFU and accept that the end of the brain means the end of the person's self.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I'm not a scientist, I have no diploma, it's his job to prove or discover, so let him prove that there is no afterlife.
You say that the end of the brain means the end of the person's self, but there is no evidence, have you ever been to that reality where this person's self continue to exist it can be without knowing of the previous life, the judgment day is in between. Accept mofo that you haven't been to that reality! Kill yourself! ;D
-
I'm not a scientist, I have no diploma, it's his job to prove or discover, so let him prove that there is no afterlife.
This has already been addressed innumerable times. No one is ever called upon to prove negatives. This is a classical logical fallacy. Otherwise, any other theory that anyone can come up with no matter how absurd it is true unless proven otherwise. Cicero once said that the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. I am not claiming anything: you are - that there is an afterlife. I am simply denying your claim until you provide evidence. This is plausible deniability.
You say that the end of the brain means the end of the person's self, but there is no evidence,
There is plenty of evidence. Every person that suffers brain damage and loses their memories, their personalities and such things are clearly demonstrating that their personalities and memories, what you could call the "soul" is the product of the brain and once the brain is damaged or destroyed the person's personality is destroyed as well.
Now, some of you religious folks might claim that the person's personality does require the brain, but that the person's brain requires the soul to express the personality. In this case, then why is it that progressive damage to the brain causes progressive loss of the person's personality? Is the person's soul distributed throughout the brain and leaves the brain only in parts when the brain is partially damaged? That is, a little damage to the brain causes a little bit of the soul to leave the body and more damage causes more? Why not just accept that there is no such thing as soul and that the partial loss of a person's personality following brain damage results from partial loss of brain ells
Partial loss of brain cells...partial loss of pesonality
Complete loss of brain cells...complete loss of personality(or death)
have you ever been to that reality where this person's self continue to exist it can be without knowing of the previous life, the judgment day is in between. Accept mofo that you haven't been to that reality! Kill yourself!
None of what you are claiming has any evidence to support it, and nor does it make sense from a logical inference point. I am sorry.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
This has already been addressed innumerable times. No one is ever called upon to prove negatives. This is a classical logical fallacy. Otherwise, any other theory that anyone can come up with no matter how absurd it is true unless proven otherwise. Cicero once said that the burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. I am not claiming anything: you are - that there is an afterlife. I am simply denying your claim until you provide evidence. This is plausible deniability.
There is plenty of evidence. Every person that suffers brain damage and loses their memories, their personalities and such things are clearly demonstrating that their personalities and memories, what you could call the "soul" is the product of the brain and once the brain is damaged or destroyed the person's personality is destroyed as well.
Now, some of you religious folks might claim that the person's personality does require the brain, but that the person's brain requires the soul to express the personality. In this case, then why is it that progressive damage to the brain causes progressive loss of the person's personality? Is the person's soul distributed throughout the brain and leaves the brain only in parts when the brain is partially damaged? That is, a little damage to the brain causes a little bit of the soul to leave the body and more damage causes more? Why not just accept that there is no such thing as soul and that the partial loss of a person's personality following brain damage results from partial loss of brain ells
Partial loss of brain cells...partial loss of pesonality
Complete loss of brain cells...complete loss of personality(or death)
None of what you are claiming has any evidence to support it, and nor does it make sense from a logical inference point. I am sorry.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
I'm not talking about anything but just an afterlife. To find out whether it exists one should just kill oneself and get back with report, I don't see any easier way.
There is a story of the man who died and found out that the afterlife exists, then then he said - it's against my beliefs...
ok I know my English sucks, so what your next say?
-
YEAH the greatest minds of the human race have proved that the person's personality dies if the brain vigorously pound with ex because there is no more electrochemical impulses between neurons occur. But they cannot prove that the life after life exists? hold on are we talking about afterlife or lifeafterlife, because there is the difference...
-
I'm not talking about anything but just an afterlife. To find out whether it exists one should just kill oneself and get back with report, I don't see any easier way.
There is a story of the man who died and found out that the afterlife exists, then then he said - it's against my beliefs...
ok I know my English sucks, so what your next say?
It is pointless debating you. You learn nothing, refuse to accept answers when you get them and then repeat the same questions over and over again and make the same inane statements over and over again. At this point, you are really just arguing for the sake of arguing and have nothing of value to say. I am done with you.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
The more you talk the more it gets twisted and winded and in the end one is only left to spit near you and spread the arms out...
-
btw just today have read in The Brothers Karamazov -
something like of Religion hopes to resurrect the dead ones (Does it God have an ability to resurrect the dead ones?). Ok the greatest minds of the human race, SUCKMYMUSCLE amongst them have proved that if the humans brain repeatedly and vigorously pound with heavy ex the brain doesn't survive, so dies persons personality, no activity in a smashed brain occurs. Well here is the next question when the scientists will prove that God cannot resurrect the dead ones, it should be proved, that God cannot do it and there is no afterlife
-
Shoot me a pm asap when some scientist somewhere around the world proves that God cannot resurrect the dead ones!