An afterlife exists
Debate Rounds (5)
While you are quite welcome to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that a deity many call Dog sends asteroids to hack off pieces of it for His supper periodically, the fact of the matter remains that people have gone to the moon and returned and have found no cheese on it or in it. To the same point, you are welcome to believe in an afterlife--but stating your belief as a fact that somehow is supposed to apply to other people than yourself merely makes your need to have others affirm your belief look... well, needy.
If you want to believe in an afterlife, then that's your business. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't insist that your beliefs are facts that somehow apply to me.
Why would you accept this debate if you have absolutely no interest in what I believe? Why are you on here at all?
Since the beginning of civilization or recorded history, we have evidence that clearly shows people have WONDERED about what happens after death. No one really knew what happens, certainly didnt need evidence, but many people seemed fo believe that there was some sort of life after death. Each culture explained this in their own ways and we have artifacts of eqyptian and mesopotamian kings that tell odd tales of venturing into a parrallel world that exists beyond the physical. This place is called hades, the underworld, land of the dead, and so on.
None of this proves anything, I know. Sure, the kings had much to gain out of creating stories about an afterlife, gods, etc. why wouldnt they fabricate stories? Surely they would. But just because someone decided to lie about getting into Harvard, does that mean "there is no such thing as Harvard?"
So the question remains. Does an afterlife realy exist?
If we look around today, there are over an estimated 8 million Near Death Experiences to have been recorded.
Still. NDEs alone would not sufficiently convince the most skeptic that an afterlife exists. Especially if that NDE didnt happen to the skeptic and the skeptic has all the opportunity to skeptically review the claim.
Though in the past atheistic skeptics were able to shrug NDE accounts off as "hallucinations" resulting from brain damage, Recent studies are starting to discover the validity of NDE claims.
Now there is actual scientific evidence to conclude these a NDEs are more probable than not.
Then we can logically conclude... Did all cultures all around the world ubiquitously believe in life after death since the beginning of civilization because ...
A. Because the kings told a fantastic story about riding a boat into heaven
B. Because there were NDEs in the past as well?
Obviously B is the rational choice. Do we all really believe our government when it says it aims to protect our rights? Laughable. Perhaps Con does. Yet he will not believe his neighbor about his experience in the afterlife?
Some people are simply more inclined to choose A as their reasoning for stories about an afterlife. They are unable to think independently, and therefore unable to discern fact from fiction. Fact is...these accounts exist, and they testify of something more than this material life on earth.
artemis111 forfeited this round.
artemis111 forfeited this round.
Now for my answer. Just because some people have had near death experiences, it doesn't follow that those experiences are real. They are a matter of belief, held by some people who had them and some who wish to believe them. Personally, I don't care if you want to pretend you are cavemen from the neolithic period and are using stones and paint to create gods. All I care about is that you do not do me the indignity of pretending that I should for some reason credit your beliefs as valid. If you truly think that I'm irrational, I don't know why my opinion would bother you.
Science has demonstrated that there are many changes that take place in the human brain during death. That's the reason for the so called "white light" that many people see in near death experiences. Many people take these biochemical changes and project religious explanations onto them. In my opinion, this is futile and rather blindsided. I don't wish to meddle with or insult anyone's belief system, but I must say something in regard to arguments that contradict the scientific data that we already know. First, you (gen. you) are welcome to your belief system; however, you are not welcome to tell me that I am irrational because I do not accept it. Second, you would come off as much more approachable and as someone I could respect if you acknowledged that I can disagree with you without being pegged as irrational--you seem to assume that anyone who answers you / disagrees with you is somehow irrational and this is offensive.
While many people, through the ages, have preferred to believe that their kings become deities (or whatever), or that some people attain sainthood (which would infer that there is some sort of supernatural authority that transcends death), that is entirely their problem. Merely because there are a lot of people who have strange beliefs, the sheer number of people like this does not add credence to their beliefs. In fact, throughout human history, there have been many atrocities that would not have happened if so many people did not sign onto beliefs that were untenable and dangerous. The mere number of people who have beliefs in a deity doesn't prove there's a deity--it means that there have been a lot of misinformed people (big surprise--the majority of humans throughout history have lived in a state deprived of information that they either cannot access or simply refuse to consider or learn to understand).
I don't have any bad feelings toward anyone who would like to believe in a life after death. I do dislike people who pretend that people who disagree with them are irrational and then offer non sequiturs to explain why. It's annoying.
When you forfeit two rounds in a row, and then act like you didn't just forfiet two rounds, this is also borderline irrational.
Rationality has to do with objective circumstance, aside from what YOU personally hope or have an "opinion" on. As a matter of fact, this being a debate, no one asked for your opinion, sir, though it is appreciated. Your opinion was very much fabricated and then conveyed upon thos channel, very much by Cons own intentions and will power, without the behest of my own.
Yet Con continues to act like i infact do care for his personal opinion. I do not. That is irrational. I Only care for facts.
Further, the question of an afterlife is not particular conception to any one particular religion. Auspiciously enough, the thematic notion of life after death exists through out ALL religions. In fact, many scientific findings point to the possibilty of an afterlife, and no science has ever been able to disprove it. I have already linked scientific research pointing to an afterlife. And my opponent only wishes to continue his dishonesty in pretending like science has disproved something it has not. If my opponent has nothing but his own opinion that "science has demonstrated" exactly how NDEs, without any evidence of this assertion, it can be disregarded. Science has done nothing of the such. And without a rational reason to believe afterlifes do not exist,
To say you arent sure is one thing. To say you disbelieve is another. And from my point of view, rejectin claims without proper scrutiny is entirely irrational. Reserving thy judgement is far more rational.
No one is talking about a deity.
I have demonstrated by lack of reasoning by my opponent that afterlifes most likely do exist given the current state of our knowledge. Thank you.
artemis111 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.