The Instigator
hect
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Tuckzer
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

there is no afterlife

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
hect
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/6/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 539 times Debate No: 71200
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

hect

Pro

rules
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
Tuckzer

Con

Come, let us play...
Debate Round No. 1
hect

Pro

First of all I must start by saying on relation the the question is there an afterlife? We must all admit we don't know that's because we can't know so the people who have to leave the debate right away are those who claim they do. We can only make logical arguments that lead to an honest assumption on the issue.

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.

source:
1. http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au...
Tuckzer

Con

Thank you for accepting me in this exciting debate.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
hect

Pro

To begin I shall rebut my opponent's arguments and then present my own.

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.

reference:
1. http://www.human-memory.net...
2. http://www.buddhistvihara.com...
3. http://www.tektonics.org...
4. http://www.britannica.com...
5.http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Tuckzer

Con

Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
hect

Pro

aghh... man this is the second time I have tried to have this debate to no avail why accept a debate if you cannot commit to a full completion of said debate.
Tuckzer

Con

Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
hect

Pro

so i think i win
Tuckzer

Con

Tuckzer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Hey you got your vote from person with Elsa picture. Let it go, let it go... Ok I'll stop butchering the song with my horrible voice and hideous typing.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
thats not really something I have an opinion on to be honest
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
dammit I better not draw on this debate
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Highly off topic and random question. What is your opinion on cyborg cockroaches?
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
I need to give them my phone number to be allowed to vote. The phone I have access to isn't mine. The owner of the phone, my grandad, doesn't like random phone calls on it, he would consider debate.org to be a random phone call. My apologies.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
Maybe if you vote on this debate first as I don't want to draw to a forfeit , also I want to go in the other order so you challenge me to make it interesting
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
I guess I am now ready for that debate on the afterlife.
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
and I do quite like the element of surprise
Posted by hect 1 year ago
hect
hmm... perhaps although you have already seen some of my best points
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Mathgeekjoe
Well con did a poor job here, not to mention forfeit. Hect, I'll take you up on this debate after I finish the current one of "better to have never exist" if you want.

"aghh... man this is the second time I have tried to have this debate to no avail why accept a debate if you cannot commit to a full completion of said debate."

I highly doubt that I could win a debate on the afterlife. But I think I could give better arguments than most.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
hectTuckzerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeited