Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Dawkins is not sure what happens when u die

MaxSterling
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:36:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

Lol what?
"But why do you want REVENGE?!"

"I HAVE REASONS!!!!!"
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:06:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

Yea... I have no idea. I know what is likely. I know what I can prove. I, you, no one can prove anything else. So... What is you issue with this answer? It is rational and honest.
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:39:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

that is just silly, your body decays or is eaten the same as any other mammal on this planet, unless the corpse is filled with chemicals or incinerated etc.
that's why it's important to live the best life you can and enjoy it while you are here.
Joshua_Verum
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:16:00 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

"The Bible says: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all." (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalm 146:4) Therefore, when we die, we cease to exist. The dead can"t think, act, or feel anything.

The Bible often compares death to sleep. (Psalm 13:3; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60) A person who is fast asleep is unaware of what is happening around him. Likewise, the dead are not conscious of anything. Yet, the Bible teaches that God can awaken the dead as if from sleep and give them life again. (Job 14:13-15) For those whom God resurrects, death is not the end of everything.

God promises a time when "he will actually swallow up death forever." (Isaiah 25:8) To remove death, he must eliminate its root cause, which is sin. God will do this through Jesus Christ, who "takes away the sin of the world.""John 1:29; 1 John 1:7."

Feel free to browse the "Life and Death" answers section at the following website:
https://www.jw.org...
(Matthew 24:14:) And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

The Kingdom message is reaching all corners of the globe. In 2010 alone, Jehovah"s Witnesses spent over 1.6 billion hours proclaiming this good news in 236 lands. Over the past decade, they have produced and distributed more than 20 billion items of literature.

https://www.jw.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 9:46:11 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

I would wager a fat bet with you that atheists existed before Dawkins. He's just a guy selling books. I personally haven't read any of his stuff.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 12:39:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."
This is what Atheists place their faith in.
Citation please.

And... you know atheists aren't 'followers' of Dawkins, yes? Rejection of gods preceded him by thousands of years.

So why don't you ask the hard question, IvS? Ask why it's better to say 'I don't know' on vague or metaphysical questions than claim you know based on ancient, ignorant and invalid traditions?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 12:52:42 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 12:39:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."
This is what Atheists place their faith in.
Citation please.

And... you know atheists aren't 'followers' of Dawkins, yes? Rejection of gods preceded him by thousands of years.

So why don't you ask the hard question, IvS? Ask why it's better to say 'I don't know' on vague or metaphysical questions than claim you know based on ancient, ignorant and invalid traditions?

Why ask for citation? Even if misquoted its completely correct. Considering the nature of death, and how a brain perceives reality heading into it, even some of the most basic assumptions of reality could be shown to be different than now perceived.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Thus far, all of the forwarded evidence affirming remote viewing is anecdotal and, thus, not viable evidence. Popularity of this notion has actually lead to controlled experimentation, which has yielded zero positive results, so far. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
bulproof
Posts: 25,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 2:50:54 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Why do theists WORSHIP Dawkins?
I've never understood their devotion.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 2:54:00 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

So, you're saying Atheists place their faith in honest answers?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:35:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

Is this really something bad? I could, being an atheist, say that I hope for an afterlife. Notice I said hope. You can't know anything for sure. Neither could you know for sure that you exist or if your life is a simulation of Megatron on planet XZY-6100.

At 12/31/2015 2:50:54 PM, bulproof wrote:
Why do theists WORSHIP Dawkins?
I've never understood their devotion.

He is an important character in their ideology indeed. Someone on DDO called him an "atheist devil pope" or something like that.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 4:52:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Funny thing is, he's right. No one knows because there's no evidence that can be tested except on the physical body, which decomposes and returns to its basic components.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:19:05 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Yea, I just don't get the insistence of these story's. No memory can (or has) existed without neural activity. Hence, not dead. A messed-up brain can do plenty of stuff, but it sure isn't dead yet.
bulproof
Posts: 25,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 5:26:18 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:19:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Yea, I just don't get the insistence of these story's. No memory can (or has) existed without neural activity. Hence, not dead. A messed-up brain can do plenty of stuff, but it sure isn't dead yet.
Just look at mad and quite a few others.
I'm not sure about the isn't dead yet. Just sayin'
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2015 6:56:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 12:52:42 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/31/2015 12:39:05 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."
This is what Atheists place their faith in.
Citation please.
And... you know atheists aren't 'followers' of Dawkins, yes? Rejection of gods preceded him by thousands of years.
So why don't you ask the hard question, IvS? Ask why it's better to say 'I don't know' on vague or metaphysical questions than claim you know based on ancient, ignorant and invalid traditions?
First in principle, because all Original Posts should cite any seminal quotes.

But mainly because I think the question itself invalid, so I want to see how it was framed.

Even if misquoted its completely correct.
I think most 'what happens to us after we die' questions are scientifically invalid, FJ, like asking what happens to your reflection when you leave the bathroom, or what do toys do when they're not observed.

While 'I don't know' is an acceptable answer, a better answer still is to suggest one examines the premise of the question.

Considering the nature of death, and how a brain perceives reality heading into it, even some of the most basic assumptions of reality could be shown to be different than now perceived.
The full implication of the Original Post is that this question is valid, and so significant that all people should be interested in it, that Dawkins (atheist, scientist, secular rationalist) doesn't know, and isn't curious, and that if he were he'd surely explore religion more, and that this argument represents a flaw in secular rationalist thought.

Yet as you alluded, scientists are exploring end of life conditions already, and most ways of asking 'what happens to us after we die' aren't scientifically valid questions, and that should be explained.

However that argument shouldn't be undertaken without accurately capturing the supposed question from which any purported quote derives.

Hence... citation please.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 7:18:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Correct, We do see a lot of different versions of what happens, I wouldn't say contradictions, only different, The only contradictions are from what we are to expect, The fact that different things are happening, does not deter from that fact that they seem to be happening.

At least something is happening, as opposed tot he alternative.

Nothing.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 7:26:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/31/2015 2:43:07 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Thus far, all of the forwarded evidence affirming remote viewing is anecdotal and, thus, not viable evidence. Popularity of this notion has actually lead to controlled experimentation, which has yielded zero positive results, so far. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Although it is very very very,( emphasis on very), difficult to actually catch this type of event going on in the act due to the rarity of such an event, it hasn't been able to be documented in a way which science can grasp it, but nonetheless, there are many accounts of doctors who have had first hand experience of such events and that swear by it.

You have to appreciate the nature of such a subtle occurrence, it is easy to document, but does it happen, I would have to say by the admission of many academics, that something is happening.

Should we just close our eyes to it and pretend everyone is delusional, or should we attempt to find out what is really happening.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 7:33:50 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 7:18:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Correct, We do see a lot of different versions of what happens, I wouldn't say contradictions, only different, The only contradictions are from what we are to expect, The fact that different things are happening, does not deter from that fact that they seem to be happening.

Near Death Experiences (NDE) being strongly linked to cultural trends points to a subjective experience dependent on the individual. So, either there are many different versions of Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammed, etc., or the experience is completely internal.

At least something is happening, as opposed tot he alternative.

Nothing.

Validity is not determined by appeal.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 8:11:35 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 7:33:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/1/2016 7:18:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Correct, We do see a lot of different versions of what happens, I wouldn't say contradictions, only different, The only contradictions are from what we are to expect, The fact that different things are happening, does not deter from that fact that they seem to be happening.

Near Death Experiences (NDE) being strongly linked to cultural trends points to a subjective experience dependent on the individual. So, either there are many different versions of Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammed, etc., or the experience is completely internal.

Maybe we have some influence is what we experience during an NDE, that's why people seem to experience things according to their culture, but this isn't always the rule.

There are also cases of little children who can remember their past live and upon checking turn out to be accurate. Carl Sagan even proffesed to this, and he was a great sceptic. Not to mention those who are born with birth defects and with memories to accommodate the previous persons life, and the birth mark even correlate to wounds they received during their past life.


At least something is happening, as opposed tot he alternative.

Nothing.

Validity is not determined by appeal.

Still something is happening, Which seems to indicate that consciousness survives death.

Not just nothing.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 8:39:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 8:11:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/1/2016 7:33:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/1/2016 7:18:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Correct, We do see a lot of different versions of what happens, I wouldn't say contradictions, only different, The only contradictions are from what we are to expect, The fact that different things are happening, does not deter from that fact that they seem to be happening.

Near Death Experiences (NDE) being strongly linked to cultural trends points to a subjective experience dependent on the individual. So, either there are many different versions of Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammed, etc., or the experience is completely internal.

Maybe we have some influence is what we experience during an NDE, that's why people seem to experience things according to their culture, but this isn't always the rule.

There are also cases of little children who can remember their past live and upon checking turn out to be accurate. Carl Sagan even proffesed to this, and he was a great sceptic. Not to mention those who are born with birth defects and with memories to accommodate the previous persons life, and the birth mark even correlate to wounds they received during their past life.

I haven't done much research on past lives, but do see a few problems with the concept:

1. It require a dualistic view of mind and body, and altered consciousness associated with brain damage (among other things) is problematic for dualism.
2. No energy/mass is unaccounted for at death. Consciousness is obviously linked to the brain, and if it "jumped ship" at death we should be able to measure that - we haven't.




At least something is happening, as opposed tot he alternative.

Nothing.

Validity is not determined by appeal.

Still something is happening, Which seems to indicate that consciousness survives death.

You're forgetting when someone is "clinically dead" their brain is not. I wouldn't call that surviving death.

Not just nothing.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2016 9:11:49 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/1/2016 8:39:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/1/2016 8:11:35 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/1/2016 7:33:50 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/1/2016 7:18:33 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 5:07:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 9:42:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:53:55 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/31/2015 4:13:10 AM, IntellectVsSpirit5000 wrote:
Richard Dawkins always says,"No one knows for sure..."

This is what Atheists place their faith in.

His statement is honest. If you're asserting you "know" what happens after death then you're misguided.

What if someone comes back from being clinically dead when the brain is severely compromised and confirms events by remote viewing. Isn't it fair to say, we know something, that consciousness survives death?

Clinically dead only means blood circulation and breathing stopped - it doesn't mean the brain is dead. Basically, you're taking the perception of (as you admit) a severely compromised brain and attaching significance to it.

When you also consider the difference between accounts of the afterlife by those "who have returned", then we can see that there are many contradictions (are there multiple afterlifes?!) and that the experience is largely dependent on the culture. i.e. you don't get a lot of Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, etc., speaking of Jesus in their near death experiences.

Correct, We do see a lot of different versions of what happens, I wouldn't say contradictions, only different, The only contradictions are from what we are to expect, The fact that different things are happening, does not deter from that fact that they seem to be happening.

Near Death Experiences (NDE) being strongly linked to cultural trends points to a subjective experience dependent on the individual. So, either there are many different versions of Jesus, Vishnu, Mohammed, etc., or the experience is completely internal.

Maybe we have some influence is what we experience during an NDE, that's why people seem to experience things according to their culture, but this isn't always the rule.

There are also cases of little children who can remember their past live and upon checking turn out to be accurate. Carl Sagan even proffesed to this, and he was a great sceptic. Not to mention those who are born with birth defects and with memories to accommodate the previous persons life, and the birth mark even correlate to wounds they received during their past life.

I haven't done much research on past lives, but do see a few problems with the concept:

1. It require a dualistic view of mind and body, and altered consciousness associated with brain damage (among other things) is problematic for dualism.

Of course it requires a dualistic view of mind and body, this doesn't mean much to me. The fact people live with severe brain damage their whole lives and are completely in a vegetative state throughout life, but suddenly display a very lucid consciousness right before death, speak a lot to suggest the brain is only a conduit and not a very necessary one in such cases, How about those with virtually no brain tissue and still lead normal lives and have high IQ'S.

2. No energy/mass is unaccounted for at death. Consciousness is obviously linked to the brain, and if it "jumped ship" at death we should be able to measure that - we haven't.

Consciousness is not a material substance Skeps, otherwise the pyramid I imagine in my head right now, would weigh a few thousand ton.




At least something is happening, as opposed tot he alternative.

Nothing.

Validity is not determined by appeal.

Still something is happening, Which seems to indicate that consciousness survives death.

You're forgetting when someone is "clinically dead" their brain is not. I wouldn't call that surviving death.

Dude I have listened to many podcast shows to the site I linked you to, Skeptiko and The host interviews a lot of academics in the field of neurology and they have no answer to why we have such experiences at the moment of death, and there is no reason why the brain should be active, it is dead, lacking oxygen and there is no answer to why we should still have such experiences.

What you are basically saying is, that we are dead but not dead, it doesn't follow.


The real problem is, that I should be having more discussions on here like this, so I can really brush up on some research, but sadly this isn't the case. But thanks anyway.