I Know For A Fact There's No Afterlife.

[theonlyone]

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.

.

[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!!!

  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

[theonlyone]

  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?
 

[suckmymuscle]

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

[theonlyone]

  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.
 

[Fatpanda]

 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.

[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.
 

  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

[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

[garebear]

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.

[theonlyone]

 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?

[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?

  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

[theonlyone]

  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?

[YngiweRhoads]

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.


 

[theonlyone]

Your English grammar has improved greatly. Good job.


 

 Hi! Who do you think it might be talking to me on Arpril 16'th 2010?

This is the last time I respond to you Quackzilla.

[tonymctones]

  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 

[YngiweRhoads]

Hi! Who do you think it might be talking to me on Arpril 16'th 2010?

LOL!

You win!

[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 

  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

[tonymctones]

 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...

[Fatpanda]

 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.

[tbombz]

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?    

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

[The Abdominal Snoman]

  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

[suckmymuscle]

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

[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

[YngiweRhoads]

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

[theonlyone]

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?