The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Does the afterlife exist?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Rational_Thinker9119
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,699 times Debate No: 19706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"What happens to us after we die?"

This question has always puzzled humans, but the question makes no sense because things can only happen to you when you are alive.

Humans are the only animals on the planet smart enough and aware of reality enough to come to the conclusion that even with a life time of survival, death will come. A cat or a dog is blissfully ignorant of the dreadful fact that even if it avoids danger it will still die at a certain age so in it's mind it is immortal.

It seems to me that the idea of an afterlife is made up by humans as a way to cope with the fact that death is inevitable for every living thing. The afterlife actually has no place in any form of what we know as reality it is just an idea conjured up by the human brain.

The brain is the reason why you can feel, taste, smell, see, hear, move, think, produce emotion and beliefs so since if the brain is responsible for all of these things, how is it logical to assume that you can have an afterlife once the brain completely dies?

If you damage one part of the brain you won't be able to speak English, damage another part and not only will you not speak English you won't recognize faces, but I'm supposed to believe that when the whole brain shuts down at death that you will be able to speak to God in perfect English and recognize your family members in heaven? (I'm just using Heaven as one example out of the many other theories there are regarding an afterlife)

Before Birth = Not Living
After Death = Not Living
After Death = Before Birth

Death is simply not being alive, you already weren't alive before you were born, so unless you believe you had some sort of "beforelife" similar to what you believe the afterlife to be, then there is no reason to believe in an afterlife.

Life is a biological process that is driven by evolution and yes, it's easy to imagine another form of life that transcends the body, but imagination is just a bi-product of a brain firing off neurons. So it seems not only is there no afterlife after the brain dies, but also there is no way of even imagining one anymore after you die.

Don't worry though, you will never know you were wrong about believing in an afterlife when you die because..Well, you'll be dead.
lannan13

Pro

well there are serval relgions with an afterlife Chistianity, Jewish religon and Islam. How do we Know you may ask. Prophets. Jesus, the bible, the kura( or however you say it), Peter, the popes, bishops, archdicosies, and I can go on. Jesus died and came back to life than ascended into heaven.
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

All religions mention the afterlife but I'm not sure how that is a valid point regarding whether it's actually true or not. Just because a book written thousands of years ago says that Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven, doesn't make it true. I could write a book saying the afterlife does not exist and it's all fairy tales for people who are scared of death, and in thousands of years they will read it, does that make my statement true just because I wrote it down? I don't think so. There either has to be some sort of logic or evidence to indicate that the idea of an afterlife is true, if not then there is no reason to believe that is the case.
lannan13

Pro

1st yes it was writen thousands of years ago, but it had several authors. (older than sciene) Do you have an alternative (reincarnation counts toward me)
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

It was written before science, meaning it is less credible. We are talking about a book that mentions talking snakes, zombies (people rising from the dead), earth being flat, earth being 6,000 - 10,000 years old, all things which are false.

"There is a false assumption about science operating here. Science is not in principle committed to the idea that there is no afterlife, or that the mind is identical to the brain, or that "materialism" is true. Science is completely open to whatever in fact is true, and if it's true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain, and by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don't understand can be disassociated from the brain at death, that would be part of our growing understanding of the world if we could discover it. There are ways we could in fact discover that if it were true, the problem is, there are very good reasons to think it's not true" - Sam Harris (Neuroscientist)

Basically what he is saying is the same thing I am. The brain is what causes consciousness, so without the brain consciousness cannot survive. For example, the light bulb produces light, but if the light bulb dies, it doesn't mean the light survives somewhere in another dimension, it means the light is gone. So once the brain dies, so does your consciousness and everything you were.

On the subject of reincarnation, there are many reasons to believe this theory is false. I mean why would you forget your past life/ lives? I mean, if there is a soul that is the "ultimate you" that travels out of a brain and finds a new host once the old body dies, then why wouldn't the soul in the new body have any knowledge of the previous host? The fact that you can't remember your past life is another indication reincarnation is not true. Plus, more people have died during the course of the earths history, than there are human bodies on earth, meaning the soul to body ratio is off , so where are the other souls? In some kind of soul limbo? I think the evidence sways the other way.
lannan13

Pro

1 for his light arguement, light leaves that area. 2 older people have more experiance than younger.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kyro90 5 years ago
kyro90
This is actually a really good debate topic, Ive always wondered what happens when you die. Do you reincarnate? Do you walk the earth as a ghost for all eternity? The possibilities are endless!
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Very well. I suppose it could work both ways, depending on how one views it. But that is the beauty of debate, is it not? :)
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You are right, absolute truth isn't an easy thing to gain knowledge of regarding this subject. I never once claimed I believed absolutely that there is no afterlife, I simply believe that all the evidence points to the fact that there most likely is no after life, not that there absolutely is no afterlife. Big difference.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Pardon me, when I said "alien," I was referring to cultures outside of your own; not extraterrestrials. Nonetheless, I didn't come to debate, rather, state how the resolution is pointless; as logic can never prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife. As for rationality, this too is something formulated from opinion. I would enjoy debating this with you sometime, although, we would never come to truth. It would be a debate of philosophy.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
You keep mentioning alien cultures, without realizing that it is the human culture who is coming up with these ideas of the afterlife. Alien cultures more advanced than us probably don't believe in such nonsense and have technology based on the fact that it can only enhance the only life they know they will have, the biological one. You are right about my standards not being set in stone, however they are the most rational.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
According to your standards; however, "Stop" could mean "Go" to someone of an alien culture, could it not? Confining this idea to the concepts of a finite world does not equate to infinity. Death is infinite; therefore the resolution could not be established in a finite world. In other words, death does not have to mean "Stop," it could very well mean "Go;" your standards aren't set in stone. The better question is, which contention is the most rational?

And THIS cannot not be established through logic; the reason for my previous comment.
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
Resolution in the form of a question is a fail.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"Logic only goes from A to Z; abstract ideas go beyond Z."

There are no letters in the English language that go beyond Z though, which is the whole point I was making in stating there is nothing beyond death. Stop doesn't mean go forever, it means stop. On that same note, Death doesn't mean life forever, is means death.
Posted by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Logic only goes from A to Z; abstract ideas go beyond Z.
Posted by Reid 5 years ago
Reid
Pointless Debate, for real.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins hands-down. Overall, both sides did not explain their cases as well as they could have. Neither side presented any source to establish credible evidence; hence, every argument was grounded in uncertainty. However, Con seemed to have taken the time to provide explanations for his case. This earns him the victory.
Vote Placed by GeoLaureate8 5 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Rational_Thinker9119lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments were weak and too brief to make a good case. Con was wrong with his reincarnation criticism of the soul/body ratio because he assumes that Earth is the only planet that souls can incarnate on. No their not in limbo, they could very well be reincarnated into another planet or dimension. Aside fr that, Con had the overall better arguments and stronger case.