The Instigator
C_e_e
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
LifeLightI
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The existence of an afterlife.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
C_e_e
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 94581
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

C_e_e

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate about whether an afterlife exists. Round 1 is for acceptance of the debate. Round 2 is for opening arguments. Round 3 is designated for replies and additional arguments. Round 4 is for replies also. But, no new questions should be asked in Round 4, since it is the last Round and responses cannot be made to them.
LifeLightI

Pro

I accept your debate regarding an afterlife, and my stance is pro.
Debate Round No. 1
C_e_e

Con

Asphodel Meadows, Cockaigne, Mictlan, and Valhalla cannot be discovered unintentionally; they have to be explained. When I first heard the term “Valhalla,” as well as the other terms listed here, I thought, “What is that?” Later, I learned about the beliefs of the Vikings and the hall that they aspired to attend. But, these alleged locations cannot be discovered accidentally. Real locations can. So, regarding Heaven and Hell, are they more similar in kind to real locations or to Valhalla and the others?

y = -3 + x:
Initially, this might seem unrelatable to our topic. But, bear with me please. What is the value of y when x is equal to 3, in the equation y = -3 + x? We know how to solve for y. But, imagine that for some reason we were not allowed to directly replace x with 3 and solve for y. We are allowed to use any other value for x -- just not 3 nor its equivalent forms. Suppose we decide to use 3.001 for x, and find that we would get 0.001 for y. Continuing this way, suppose we substitute 3.00001 for x and evaluate that we would receive the value 0.00001 for y. So, even if we weren't permitted to evaluate directly the value of y if x were 3, we could gain an understanding of the likely outcome by investigating values close to 3. Similarly, we are told that we cannot evaluate, at our will, directly, the nature of Heaven nor Hell. But, we can evaluate matters approaching death. When death is near, the skin will show the effects of slowing circulation, respiration will become irregular and stop at times, there will be increased periods of sleepiness, a decreased intake of fluids and liquids, and a decrease in blood pressure and body temperature.[1][5][6] Yet, the adopted assumptions of believers are contrary to what's indicated. It's as though they believe that those functions as well as consciousness are either preserved elsewhere or will be reinstated. And, that is somewhat like believing that we should get the value 7,000 for y, when x is 3.

Since we are discussing matters close to death, I'll express my views on near-death experiences. Firstly, near-death experiences are not unvarying nor a standard aspect of dying for all people. Reports of them vary in correlation with prevalent cultural norms.[4][7] In countries where Hinduism is a prevalent cultural norm, people report seeing Yama, the god of the dead, and having the akashic record of their life read.[4][7] A Lakota Sioux Native American's near-death story involved horses, spotted eagles, and geese.[7] An Egyptian Muslim lady reported seeing a throne inscribed with the words “There is no God but God, and Muhammad is His messenger,” after a car wreck.[7] A Taoist reported seeing Yudi, The Jade Emperor, during his near-death experience.[7] It is as if the religious teachings in a region can prompt people's subconscious.

We do know what happens to our bodies when we die, just as we know the value for y if x were 3. But, it's as though the grim facts of decomposition are disregarded to heed afterlife notions instead. We have more specific definitions for death. One definition entails the cessation of respiration and heartbeat. It's called “clinical death.”[2] “Brain death” is the complete cessation of brain function as evidenced by absence of brain-wave activity and is used as a legal definition of death.[3] Those who report near-death experiences do not have brain death.

[1] http://health.howstuffworks.com...
[2] http://www.dictionary.com...
[3] http://www.dictionary.com...
[4] http://www.near-death.com...
[5] http://www.hospicepatients.org...
[6] http://www.hrrv.org...
[7] http://listverse.com...
LifeLightI

Pro

I loved reading your side of the argument, especially when you included math.
I wont rebuttal your claims because they are all based on facts but they don't really dive deep into the question and or an afterlife. Just speaking about living, getting older, and how the body will be in regards.
The fact that many other religions have each seen what they primarily believe in, is indeed subconscious. It wipes the picture out completely.
Quick question to add to that: Do you believe that either A) A man made up a huge book regarding heaven and hell, as well as a bunch of science, morals, stories, and how to's that have actually proven quite true is completely made up from a man whom could not read or write's, imagination? Meaning if so, Muhammed the prophet in Islam who revealed the Quran through God was a genius, in fact smart in every aspect of life. Or B) What he revealed was thoroughly accurate, received from God thus proving the holy book to be a Valid one. And if you do believe in God we can imagine him to not be a liar, so common sense would point to the afterlife existing. That would be a religious standpoint.
The bible also has some holy scriptures and stories, as well as the Torah. If you would like me to prove some points from these books that are accurate scientifically i will.
Talking spiritually i would like to put it out there that astral projection may or may not be real. Yet many people seem to be able to have the experience. During the experience it was said that a man was connected to his body by a cord?
This cord is also mentioned in the Bible, and when that cord is severed death will emerge. (This is not completely accurate because it is not supported by evidence, only hear say by other humans, who may or may not be in the highest state of mind)
For there to be no after life a human would have to pass and as his or her brain and body shut down, they themselves also shut down completely into nothing. All their thoughts completely disappear and transfer into nothing. It doesn't seem plausible if you think about it.
The phrase follow your heart, makes it seem as if its not only our minds that give us ideas... So even if our brain shut down, we may have other capabilities.
They say your soul leaves your body.Now you may not believe in your soul existing sense you are arguing con, against an afterlife. But another point comes into play. That if you did pass away physically, your soul would leave your body (this is also in Holy books, making it completely credible.
Your soul will be judged and you would enjoy your afterlife based on that.
We are not just some sort of animal that developed off of earth. Miracles happen all the time and even after people have completely "died" medically, when the doctors bring them back to life they claim to have had an experience of an afterlife at that. Because physically they were gone for a couple seconds at that, completely.
Lets speak about an OBO. Out of body experience, one in which your soul may leave your body, it can happen in traumatic events. Such an experience is definitely conceivable, only because it has in fact been experienced by many people. (10%)
"How Many People Actually Manage to Have an Out of Body Experience?" Out of Body Experience. N.p., 2014. Web. 11 Aug. 2016.
I would like some hard core proof on your end, proving myself wrong, and or the afterlife wrong, and completely out of the picture. It would also be nice to hear some of your views, and philosophy from yourself added into the argument.
Thank you :)!
Debate Round No. 2
C_e_e

Con

“I would like some hard core proof on your end, proving myself wrong, and or the afterlife wrong, and completely out of the picture.”
The type of proof that is maximally achievable is dependent on the nature of a subject. Unhelpful to us, the nature of our subject relegates us to marginal assessments of death and near-death. But, it is compelling evidence that near-death experiences' reports vary along with the trends of a society, that no one is having experiences of the Mictlan type now that the Aztecs have died, that Heaven and Hell concepts, like Mictlan, have to be introduced and explained to people first -- they can't be discovered unintentionally. Such things make afterlife theories seem like mere concepts that are faithfully believed.
“Quick question to add to that: Do you believe that either A) A man made up a huge book regarding heaven and hell, as well as a bunch of science, morals, stories, and how to's that have actually proven quite true is completely made up from a man whom could not read or write's, imagination?”
The order of discovery of scientific knowledge is relevant here. People did not read the Quran and then update our public scientific knowledge. The order instead was that of the rigorous work of scientists followed by reinterpretation of religious text with the convenient claim “Our text was saying exactly that all along.” I think a great portion of the Quran is conceptions of men written down -- not necessarily with an intent to deceive others; what was written was probably written with the earnest belief that the conclusions were from God.
“The bible also has some holy scriptures and stories, as well as the Torah. If you would like me to prove some points from these books that are accurate scientifically I will.”
There are scientific inaccuracies in the Bible and Quran as well. The faithful simply find favorable interpretations for those parts of their scriptures like saying that the verses had allegorical intention.
“For there to be no after life a human would have to pass and as his or her brain and body shut down, they themselves also shut down completely into nothing. All their thoughts completely disappear and transfer into nothing. It doesn't seem plausible if you think about it.”
It seems plausible to me. Can our consciousness be maintained after the decomposition of our brains? When we try to measure what our brains are doing as we think, we find synchronous electrical and chemical activity.[1] To adopt the conclusion that we can have thoughts, memories, and personalities without a brain, is to believe something that we have found no instances of. Clinical death is not brain death. So, the infrequent reports of near-death experiences are those involving clinical death.
“Your soul will be judged and you would enjoy your afterlife based on that.”
This is not true by proclamation nor true by faith, nor by sincere belief. Religion has influenced people to become desensitized to unconfirmability. We should be affected by the fact that a judgment day is not confirmable. Instead, people know that unconfirmability is a norm for religious topics and they've become accepting of a fairly low standard of truth, and faithfully treat as true unidentifiable and unconfirmable notions.
“Let's speak about an OBO. Out of body experience, one in which your soul may leave your body, it can happen in traumatic events.”
I regard perceived out-of-body experiences as a type of near-death experience. So, I was using the phrase “near-death experience” to include reports of those as well. But, it should be mentioned that there is not a constant conjunction between (A) someone about to die, and (B) an experience of a Hindu (Christian, Muslim, Aztec, or Viking) theory of what happens after death for everyone. If there were one invariable experience of the Hindu (Christian, Muslim, Aztec, or Viking) type for all people approaching death, then the stories would seem more like an aspect of the reality we all share, and less like an odd occasional effect of our non-brain-dead minds while straddling life and death.
A goal of public education is to have an informed, responsible, citizenry capable of navigating adult life. Don't you think that if religious topics were real the public schools would teach them? Instead, it's as though the policy makers say, “Let them believe whatever, so long as it doesn't promote violence. Let them believe in paradises and any fanciful conception.”
I'm aware of the separation of church and state policy. When the work of Gregor Mendel established the field of genetics, it became irrelevant that he was a friar, a Christian, and did the work at a monastery. So, what I am suggesting is that if there is an aspect of the reality we all share that is discoverable in this topic, then the religious environment in which it is discovered won't matter; the fact that we gained new knowledge would be what matters.
“It would also be nice to hear some of your views, and philosophy from yourself added into the argument.”
Hopefully, this round of debate has done that. Let me know if there is something specific you want for me to elaborate more on.

[1] http://engineering.mit.edu...
LifeLightI

Pro

Very well written. Thanks for going into depth when answering questions I have raised. It seems like you have your understanding on the afterlife as do I, and they may differ. Religion is taught in school once a student becomes of an understanding age, highschool. For an unbeliever its a 50/50 chance weather or not there will be an afterlife, regardless of what they believe because as you said there is no direct proof. There is an unseen world for sure that exists, as i believe. There is the paranormal, miracles, the unexplainable, there may even be other dimensions. I have no other arguments other than what I have already presented.
The afterlife may be evident because we are more than a physical body. We have higher capabilities. The fact that we exist, should be eternal. We have only unlocked a small portion of our brain. By using all of it, we never know what is possible.
Debate Round No. 3
C_e_e

Con

I thank my opponent for her kind words.
“I have no other arguments other than what I have already presented.”
It looks like we both have given our side on this topic and finished sooner than the allotted number of Rounds. That is fine. I won't belabor my points either. I ask that we are evaluated by the voters on our cases made thus far. My opponent did make a few points in the previous round, though. Mainly, she expressed her belief that there is a spiritual realm. She posited the notion that humans have the potential to access a spiritual realm. I don't think that there is such a realm. And so, we differ on that point.
It was great to debate someone who really cared about getting to the truth of a topic.
I thank my opponent for having a courteous debate.
LifeLightI

Pro

Thank You! :)
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 3 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I will try to complete this tomorrow night... hopefully.
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 3 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
I will try to post an rfd later... but I will be gone for a couple of days, sorry.
Posted by Peepette 3 months ago
Peepette
Comments: PRO concedes to facts on near death experiences, but asserts that those who briefly die & brought back have afterlife experiences. CON points that these people are not clinically brain dead; this is compatible to near death experiences. On science/knowledge: PRO states there are scientific proofs in holy books, but does not provide examples. CON rebuts on their inconsistencies, and scientific knowledge came after these writings, but no examples are provided for a solid rebuttal. This point is a wash, mutual assertions are of little substance. The salient arguments are CON"s there is no consciousness after brain decomposition; the faithful choose to ignore fact, afterlife cannot be proved. Against PRO"s the holy books are valid, man"s sole is the vehicle to the afterlife; nothingness is not plausible. The strongest argument goes to CON that stories of afterlife vary based on cultural/religious belief systems, afterlife is unproven. Using the Aztecs as example of an afterlife experience no longer told lends the statements as having greater weight.

Critique: In many instances both sides made assertions with no citations to back them up (other than CON"s death science sources). PRO assumes that the reader is credulous that man lacks the imagination to have created the contents of holy writings; thousands of years of literature negates that premise which I hoped CON would have pointed out, but did not. Pro is also wishy washy on a few of her points. The premise that humans not being just animals could"ve been flushed out more. PRO"s "soul" point went unaddressed by CON. The subject is poignant, since is the R06;crux of the issue in discussing afterlife in Abrahamic religions. CON gets verbose at times which makes the debate a bit of a chore to read in sections. It"s better to get to the point and use an occasional metaphor for emphasis.
Posted by Peepette 3 months ago
Peepette
RDF Section 1
CON contends that reporting of near death experiences are varied and are aligned with the sub conscience and cultural religious beliefs. With death, despite the truth of decomposition, the faithful choose to believe that there"s an afterlife, that their consciousness is preserved or reinstated. There is no consciousness after brain decomposition. Those who briefly die and are brought back and state experiences were not brain dead. The nature of faith negates confirmability of the notion of an afterlife. No one has told the Aztec concept of afterlife since Aztecs no longer exists; which confirms that near death experiences fall along cultural/religious lines.

PRO agrees with CON on the point on the subconscious is at play in near death experience, but religious teachings, Quran & Bible, point that there is an afterlife. Man was not capable of writing such works that have been proved to be true, therefore attributed to God lending validity of an afterlife. There is scientific proof in these works. That we shut down to nothing and transfer to nothing is not plausible. Even though our brain ceases to function in death our souls leave our bodies and we are judged through this in the afterlife. Humans are not just animals, people have died and have been brought back and claimed to have had an afterlife or out of body experience.
Posted by ThinkBig 3 months ago
ThinkBig
I am working on my RFD. Easy win for con. Vote coming soon.
Posted by canis 3 months ago
canis
How would that even in theory be possible ?+...1 human, 1. butterfly, 1.flower and 1. chair.
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
destruction=turn my back
Posted by LifeLightI 4 months ago
LifeLightI
Expand on that please.
@Vi_spex
Posted by vi_spex 4 months ago
vi_spex
afterlife=death=destruction=memory=past
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Diqiucun_Cunmin 3 months ago
Diqiucun_Cunmin
C_e_eLifeLightITied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12UjPTiQ_sGNkQ4Fw-c78Z1i-NXYpPRgv82_6FPRNL7I/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by Peepette 3 months ago
Peepette
C_e_eLifeLightITied
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 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: RFD in comments