The Instigator
MWeldon11
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Steve0Yea
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Life beyond death

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,570 times Debate No: 17908
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

MWeldon11

Con

The human body is nothing but a set of chemical reactions. The chemical reactions powering a human life are no different from the reactions powering the life of a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. When a human being dies, the chemical reactions stop. There is no "soul" mixed in with the chemicals, just like there is no soul in a bacterium, a mosquito, a mouse, a dog or a chimp. Why would there be an afterlife for the chemicals that make up a human body?

The whole notion of your "soul" is completely imaginary. The concept of a "soul" has been invented by religion because many people have trouble facing their own mortality. It makes people feel better, but the concept is a complete fabrication.

It is when you think about the chemical reactions powering your life and your brain that you realize how completely imaginary your "soul" truly is. And at that point, everything about religion comes unraveled.

Now how would these chemicals that make up our body composition drift up into thee clouds and the gates of heaven? Or the gates of hell in the center of the Earth for the matter???
Steve0Yea

Pro

I am not exactly sure what it is we are debating. I’m assuming it’s the existence of the soul… but “Life beyond death” was your resolution.

The Soul:


The soul is defined as Wikipedia as

“A soul, in certain spiritual, philosophical, and psychological traditions, is the incorporeal essence of a person or living thing or object.[1] Many philosophical and spiritual systems teach that humans have souls; some attribute souls to all living things and even to inanimate objects (such as rivers); this belief is commonly called animism.[2] Soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self.[3]”

I’m actually very pleased with this definition because it supports what I thought in the first place. “Soul sometimes functions as a synonym for spirit, mind or self.” Being atheist I do not necessarily believe in an afterlife in Christian terms. I believe that we leave our mark on the world though, that is our afterlife. These debates will live on after we die. The books some of our fellow debaters write will live on after they die. The art some of our fellow earthlings create will live on after they die. The “Soul” is not necessarily INSIDE of us, it is who we are and what we create. Also, the definition could be seen as a clarification on your point. “The body is made up of chemical reactions.” These chemical reactions could be simplified and called a “Soul” as you can see in the Wiki definition it says a soul is the “essence of a person or living thing or object.” That could merely mean our knowledge and experiences. It doesn’t necessarily mean there is a physical thing inside of us that is holding all of our knowledge and it leaves us when we die. It merely is a metaphor for said knowledge and experience.

Life Beyond Death:

Life beyond death is a very easy argument to defeat, as I stated in my “Soul” argument you live on through your writings and the influences on the world you make. If you were to have children the teachings you instilled in them will make you “Live on” so to speak. If you are speaking about the Christian “Life after death” you should have been more specific. Although I will play devil’s advocate to my own beliefs if you like and continue this debate. Although I will most definitely lose because the afterlife by Christian definition is improvable and unfortunately I have burden of proof. Winning or losing doesn’t really matter it’s the discussion that matters anyhow.

Debate Round No. 1
MWeldon11

Con

this debate is about whether there is life beyond death, whether the is a heaven or hell, what will happen to our bodies our mind, our spirit after death, will it simply end there? this debate is not about the remembrance of someone through their art or accomplishments in life. Wiki is a user submitted database that anyone can go and change and write whatever they want (my friend edited the Soulja Boy (rapper) page saying that my friend indeed was Soulja Boy) you see how anyone can go and edit the pages found on wiki? this debate is about whether there is an afterlife "in christian terms"
Steve0Yea

Pro

Let’s take a step back a moment and look at my opponents arguments (or lack thereof really).

Round 1:

In the first round he stated the body is nothing more than a set of chemical reactions. The notion of a soul is completely imaginary. Religion without the idea of a soul comes unraveled. And chemicals that make up our body cannot drift up into the clouds and the gates of heaven, or to the center of the earth to hell. No sources though.

Round 2:

In the second round he stated that debate is about life after death “In Christian Terms”. Meaning the existence of a heaven and hell. And what will happen to our bodies, mind, and spirit after death. He has also stated he will not accept Wiki (which is generally accepted as far as I have seen) as a source. I did find it interesting however that he mentioned our “Spirit” and yet he claims that we do not have one. I would also like to point out there is not even one grammatically correct sentence in this argument, nor sources.

My arguments about life “BEYOND” death are now irrelevant. I am now going to prove that Heaven and Hell “In Christian Terms” exist and that after we die we will be sent to one of these places. Because my opponent really didn’t state any argument (besides the body is made up of chemical reactions) or sources or anything, I will be starting from scratch. Meaning I only really have two rounds to state my case and rebut his (if he ever makes one). My case will be clarifying the bible (being the word of God) proves the existence of heaven and hell. You may claim that the bible is fictitious but I will also prove that the bible is true.

Bible Verses That Prove The Existence Of Heaven:

MAR 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into

heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

1TH 4:17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up 
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we 
will be with the Lord forever.
 
DEU 26:15 Look down from heaven, your holy dwelling place, and bless your 
people Israel and the land you have given us as you promised on oath to our 
forefathers, a land flowing with milk and honey."
 
 
 
 
Bible Verses That Prove The Existence Of Hell:
 
MAT 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be 
subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is 
answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in 
danger of the fire of hell.

MAR 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you 
to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire 
never goes out.

LUK 12:5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the 
killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, 
fear him.

REV 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the 
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all 
liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the 
second death."
 
 
The Bible Is The True Word Of God:
 

“The Bible is not a science book, yet it is scientifically accurate. I am not aware of any scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible. We have listed statements on this page that are consistent with known scientific facts. Many of them were listed in the Bible hundreds or even thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere.


Statements Consistent With Paleontology:

Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot—since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though.)

Statements consistent with Astronomy:

The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 1021 stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 1025. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

The Bible also says that each star is unique.

1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.

All stars look alike to the naked eye.* Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others. (*Note: We understand that people can perceive some slight difference in color and apparent brightness when looking at stars with the naked eye, but we would not expect a person living in the first century A.D. to claim they differ from one another.)

The Bible describes the precision of movement in the universe.

Jeremiah 31:35,36
Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
“If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.

Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space;
He hangs the earth on nothing.

There are many more proofs but due to special issues I will list the rest of them then continue on. Statements Consistent With Meteorology, Statements Consistent With Biology, Statements Consistent With Anthropology, Statements Consistent With Hydrology, Statements Consistent With Geology, Statements Consistent With Physics

The Proof of Prophecy:

One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

The Proof of Textual Evidence:

Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence (the evidence of early hand written copies). The famous Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the “library” of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier (third century BC) and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented (orthographic) changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind today’s Old Testament, in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years (where one would expect errors to creep in).[1]



SOURCES:

[1] http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...

Sub Sources:

[1] The DEFENDER’S Study Bible, Word Publishing, Grand Rapids, Michigan (1995).
[2] The Number of Stars
[3] The Hydrologic Cycle
[4] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.)

Debate Round No. 2
MWeldon11

Con

Okay, since you seem to be such a stuck up little bitch, I will start using grammatically correct sentences. I did not think that it mattered that much, but I will. To clear things up, since you seem to be a little slow, this debate is to determine whether there is LIFE BEYOND DEATH, whether we go to a supposed HEAVEN OR HELL. I do not believe there is LIFE BEYOND DEATH, I simply believe it ends when our heart stops beating and that's it! Basically I'm trying to disprove the Christian beliefs, of God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell etc. Are we clear now? I do not accept Wiki as a source because it is all user submitted, anyone can go and change the data and information on any Wiki page, it's not that reliable.

Now, although some people find it hard to believe, I feel that when we die, that's it, there is nothing left for us as a human being. After all our body is nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions.

Secondly, the bible isn't proof of anything, for no religions' bible is proof of anything for that matter. Take the Jehovah's witnesses for example, in 1870 the founder of the religion Jehovah's Witnesses, read and re-wrote the old testament bible adding and removing things where he felt it was necessary. Now, he also tried predicting the end of the world and the second coming of Jehovah stating that when Jehovah comes to earth he will only save the believers. the rest will parish, that event has been predicted many time but NEVER happened.

For a prophecy to be true and accurate that must mean that our lives are pre-destined, to predict what will happen in the future, the prophet must know what events lead up to that final, foreseen event.

To believe that when we die our supposed souls or bodies or ghosts etc. will rise or lower into heaven or hell where we will mingle with the lord or Satan and the others, well that's just bogus and anyone who believes in religions surrounding that belief are just poor misguided people who are looking for closure and something to believe in.
Steve0Yea

Pro

Nice language, thanks for the free win.

Well not im irritated... Not even going to bother to comment on anything in that last post, thanks for the debate.

Vote Pro, Con used foul language, directly attacked me, used no sources, poor grammar and spelling, i expected this to be a great debate and now im just sorry anyone has to read this at all.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
now im irriated*

was what my last post was supposed to say.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Con should note that biology, especially when it applies to the mechanisms of the body, do not necessarily apply to the soul (as we conceive it), and therefore does not conclusively show that there is no 'life after death'. If he defined life as something alone these borders, as being characterized by forms that "undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means" http://en.wikipedia.org... his argument might have been more relevant...

What do you think of my critique of MWeldon11's first round argument?
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
Holy hell, my brain hurts.... use some punctuation man.

Ill reply to this around 5pm tonight. Im at work right now and cant get to my computer. (im on my phone)
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
It doesn't really matter either, a debates a debate. Ill argue the devils advocate to my actual beliefs if i have to i just like to argue. Lol
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
Haha, well he wasn't exactly clear...
Posted by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
"I'm not exactly sure what we are debating..." Never a good way to start your debate round.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed only to care for insulting Pro, rather than producing any arguments.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Better arguments by Pro.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct points for directly attacking his opponent...He also has poor sentences, in terms of structure, grammar, and spelling; did not make an argument at all (while Pro argued, though with flawed contentions, the existence of the soul or afterlife) and, despite criticizing Pro's use of Wikipedia, offered no source of his own to back up his claims...Wow, Con...your behavior doesn't merit you a win anyway...
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "stuck up bitch" makes conduct clear, Pro handled that well. Con who started this debate was unclear on the thesis. The only sources came from Pro. I do think Pro failed to address Con's round 1 and had Con followed up he could have won.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses conduct for being unprofessional. While his arguments are understandable, the disorganized way they were presented along with his attacks on Pro gets him no points for arguments. Pro on the other made clearly defined arguments based on his definition. Con also did not use reliable sources.
Vote Placed by wierdman 5 years ago
wierdman
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: superior argument.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 5 years ago
XStrikeX
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a "b***h." Loss of conduct. Con had frequent spelling errors. Loss of s/g. Con constantly rambled, making useless, weak arguments. Con used no sources. Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Puppet911 5 years ago
Puppet911
MWeldon11Steve0YeaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: In Terms of the voting criteria, Pro gets it...no questions asked. Con should have avoided stating superfluous statements and remarks towards Pro. Con made absolute no sense with his little remarks and statements in regards to the resolution. This subaudition you created (Pro) made no sense, and what was truly implied, was completely disregarded an taken for granted. All in all, Pro kept to what was derived from this misinterpreted Con. Also, in terms of evidence, at least Pro offered something