there is no afterlife
Debate Rounds (5)
1st round is acceptance only
2nd round arguments only
3rd round rebuttals and arguments
4th round more rebuttals and arguments
5th round rebuttals and conclusions only no new arguments
If you wish to discuss the rules make a comment in the comment section
Now to my arguments I will present throughout the debate.
I think it is obvious that the concept of an afterlife is a man made idea constructed for a number of reason I shall discuss. The first being consolation and wishful thinking; it's obviously comforting if your child just died but your are told not to worry because he/she is going to a better place, which in my view is a slightly immoral idea because it's to say any thing that makes you feel better is fine, drugs can also make you feel 'better'.
The other is control and power as for centuries the afterlife has represented a claim by humans to be able to interpret the divine thus give themselves power by doing so.
Now on to the point of eternity the afterlife represents, sure the first 100 years or so may be enjoyable in heaven/ other religious equivalent, maybe even the first few hundred but what about after 1000, 10 000, 100 000, 1000 000 and ad infinitum things would surely start to seem repetitive and mundane and would start to look a lot like hell.
We all know the party of life is going to end, eventually you will be tapped on the shoulder and asked to leave; the party is going on without you but you must leave. This is where the afterlife comes in, you are told you go to another party where someone comes and tapes you on the shoulder but this time tells you you can never leave and what's more demands you have a good time. This cannot be believed by a thinking person.
Also who determines what beings gain access to the afterlife is it just the human species, how does one determine this; via DNA? Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species (1). So apes to maybe then you must go down the gene pool to squirrels, rats, fish and bacteria, and if animals are not allowed in the afterlife what happens to them?
Closing point I think It is fairly obvious that the state/ non state after death is parallel to what you experienced before conception/birth.
Before we begin, let us clarify the word 'afterlife'. Based on Wikipedia's information, afterlife refers to a realm,in which an essential part of an individual's identity or consciousness continues to exist after the death of the body in the individual's lifetime.
Other than that, I would also like to take the oppurnity to analyse my opponent's speech.
First of all, my opponent said phrases like 'I think', 'in my view' and more. It is fairly to say that my opponent is merely giving his own personal view and his own assumptions.
Besides that, my opponent gave no solid evidence or whatsoever to support his first and second point. Therefore, his first and second point can only be considered as assumptions and nothing more.
Moreover, my opponent have stated that other living creatures are somewhat similar to human genes. However, by proving this particular fact does not determine the existence of an afterlife. It merely proves that humans are similar to *some* animals, but not the *same*. Therefore, my opponent have made an interesting but useless point to today's debate.
Now, let us begin today's debate by asking ourselves a question: "Is there an afterlife?"
Based on Professor Robert Lanza from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina, he has proved the existence of an afterlife using quantum physics. To prove my point, http://www.dailymail.co.uk....
Secondly, Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton, did a research on patients who had near-death experiences. Dr Parnia"s study involved 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, and has been published in the journal Resuscitation. Most of those who have near-death experiences, said they're minds still have conscious awareness even though they were already dead. This proves that an afterlife exists. To prove my point, http://www.independent.co.uk....
In conclusion, many evidences have proved the existence of an afterlife. Therefore, an afterlife exists.
My opponent began by criticising the way I phrased my arguments, my opponent must not have read the very first paragraph where I explained why I would be arguing this way. The same goes for my opponents next point.
The point of DNA similarities is extremely important as I will prove throughout the debate, because as I will argue the afterlife is a man made idea which in almost all religions only talks about humans being granted access to the afterlife, I feel like I am repeating myself but again I must ask where does one draw the line from distinguishing human from animal and if the animals don't go to an afterlife what happens to them?
To my opponents first reference which I read in no way shape or form does it say that there is empirical proof of an afterlife, it was merely one scientists believe there is based on the multiverse theory, also the multiverse theory has not yet been completly been proven either so the argument collapses on itself as he first needs to completely prove the multiverse theory is true before he can even begin his own theory, so the scientist still has all his work in front of him. Also would this not have been a groundbreaking find if it were 'true' however from studying my opponents reference it is merely just the opinion of one scientists, in other words no one is buying what this man is selling.
Secondly my opponent talks about near-death experiences also known as NDE's which by definition is already wrong as an NDE is not a dead person by any means. Also what's more likely the all the laws in the universe changed to suit the patient or someone under a full medical drug induced coma had a dream? I think the latter is obvious.
It should also be known here that what my opponents is asking you the voters to consider is if you damage one part of the brain (prefrontal cortex ) somthing about the mind and subjectivity is lost (you may be able to remember the names of dogs but not tools, or recognise names but not faces) and you damage another part and yet more is lost (1), but when you damage the whole brain at death we can rise off the brain with all our faculties intact recognizing doctors and speaking english, again this cannot believed by a thinking person. And this argument is an absolute hammer blow to the notion of an afterlife.
Now to my arguments
Earlier I referred to the afterlife being man made, 'man' being the key word here, I'm sure we have all heard of islam and the 72 virgins promised for male materys of Islam. Buddhism= a man if he leads a bad life and will be reincarnated as a woman, also a women can not reach spiritual enlightenment (2). As the afterlife is obviously man made for man than my DNA argument comes into play again, do only male chimpanzee's gain access to an afterlife? This idea is laughable.
Now to the christian afterlife and the eternal concept of heaven and hell, it may come as a surprise that the concept of hell does not make an appearance until the new testament (3) either it is eternal or it is not. Again it should be obvious that the concept of hell was thought up of again by some human at a later date.
My final argument for the moment is limbo, a now proven fact that this was a concept of an afterlife invented by man, the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th and 15th centuries made several authoritative declarations on the subject of limbo, stating that the souls of those who die in original sin only (i.e., unbaptized infants) descend into hell but are given lighter punishments than those souls guilty of actual sin. The damnation of infants and also the comparative lightness of their punishment thus became articles of faith (4). Now the Vatican has abolished Limbo thus babies who die before being baptised will no longer be trapped in limbo following a decision by the Pope to abolish the concept from Roman Catholic teaching (5) this argument obviously shatters any concept of an afterlife as it shows how the heads of religion simply invented an idea of their own whim which was firmly believed by millions of their followers and later simply said it was not true.
It should be clear ladies and gentlemen brothers and sisters that the concept of an afterlife is not only untrue it is a fictitious evil teaching that humanity would do itself a huge service if it broke away from believing.
Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Tuckzer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year 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:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited
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.