The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The type of afterlife seems irrational when considering ghosts, and heaven.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 994 times Debate No: 17058
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




I would like the opportunity to openly refute the idea of heaven, and ghosts. My grounds for refuting such are based on points that should sway a rational mind.

Feel free to jump right in, I would like to strike preemptively and say the argument of us all being aloof to reality, as logic at it's base is relative, only works in my favor. Thus pointing out that value is an illusion, such a relative existence would undermine individual values and replace such with a myriad of causal contingencies.


Me being an atheist, I find any thought other than non-existence after death to be a flight of fancy. I don't believe in a heaven, and I'd like to say I don't believe in ghosts. Science tells us anything we cannot prove to exist or not is not considered science, but there are many things that science cannot measure that we still find to be very real, such as the consciousness, art, and other very subjective items. In the same way, heaven and ghosts fall into this same category.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to sincerely thank my opponent for accepting this Debate

Hi fellow non theist, I have a hard time with heaven as well, but just as much or more with ghosts. The fact gets fuzzy when looking at it in certain ways such as, where do you draw the line, right after the monkey uses a tool, then they get ghostified. My real issue is that there are life forms as small as germs that LIVE just the same. There is no sitting room in the ghost world.

Are you partial to Animism, 10000BC?


Up until now I had never heard of Animism, but if a tree has a spirit, does the table it become also have that spirit? I also think you are giving ghosts a very personalized appeal, such as Casper the friendly ghost. If there are indeed ghosts, then they may be nothing more than dissipating energy from a living being, with no meaning or purpose than to just float and disperse. Most of what we believe about ghosts and heaven are just a human's tendency to put a face on things we cant explain.
Debate Round No. 2


The idea of the table/spirit is confined in the corpse of the tree for your analogy, to make it seem less likely that a tree would innately have a spirit, when the idea of human a spirit gets to float around and disperse. subtle

The tree scenario seems akin to saying, if i cut off my arm would that be my spirit.

Ghosts are said to be you in your best form that's why it's personalized, if my brain was torn into 50 pieces are there 50 ghosts.

Ghosts don't disperse, but Dead bodies Deteriorate.


DrStrangeLuv forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by GOD-vs-ITSELF 5 years ago
I am interested in knowing how the theory of heaven, and/or ghosts is understood by those who believe in it.

There seem to be certain conflicting ideas involved in such as, the theory of going ghost, who does it, there are momentary blips of energy coming into existence and disappearing so fast "everywhere". This is happening on the small scale, life spans that measure on the range of nanoseconds. If we just consider how unnecessarily large the picture get with all the living beings that have ever existed on every scale, existing without end, we would see that we are just the grain of sand that we are in the big scheme of things. Why then assert we will be granted life without a body/brain.
Posted by ReginaldJeeves 5 years ago
well what we are confused about is what exactly you want the PRO to prove. are you wanting them to prove that souls, ghosts, and an afterlift exist or that they are rational ideas or what? if that makes sense.
Posted by GOD-vs-ITSELF 5 years ago
I often wonder how so many smart people can be fooled by religion, but life after death is personal it's something that somebody without faith in a deity, or heaven could talk themselves into.

I don't mean to be obscure but their are a many assertions that one must formulate before they can put this into a mental model, I am sure you all have really thought about afterlife or lack there of.

If your still confused I am Con Heaven, Ghosts, Souls, ect.
Posted by Koopin 5 years ago
jump magic jump!
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
His position is that he can refute the idea of heaven and ghosts and the opening justification is :

"... us all being aloof to reality, as logic at it's base is relative, only works in my favor. Thus pointing out that value is an illusion, such a relative existence would undermine individual values and replace such with a myriad of causal contingencies."

I don't see how you can get more clear than that.
Posted by MCDCBC 5 years ago
I would like to take this debate but I don't understand what I would be debating.
Posted by Spartan 5 years ago
This sounds very interesting. I would love to take this given my biblical background. But I dont understand what you want.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
What exactly is this debate about? What does pro have to argue?
Posted by ReginaldJeeves 5 years ago
so are you asking PRO to prove that Heaven and ghosts both exist? or are rational ideas? What exactly is the debate over?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: This was more of a discussion than a debate and thus was balanced until the forfeit.