So, Xonage

The evidence of "everything known to be connected with the functioning of a thing has been destroyed" is in all other cases accepted as sufficent evidence under present knowldeg for accepting the hypothesis that the function itself has stopped. All structures and processes known to be associated with the functioning of that collection of thoughts and behaviors distinguishable as you is destroyed around the time of your death. If you don't think it is, I can come to your place of residence and make completely sure.

So explain why in this case the same type and caliber of evidence is not sufficient under present knowldeg. Because you don't wish it to be?

Go back and get some small measure of intellectual integrity so as to make your worth talking down to before coming back.

(July 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: The answer is this: Is there any evidence that we -do- live on in some way after death?

I think you hit the nail firmly on the head. Saying that we don't have any evidence there isn't an afterlife is simply shifting the burden of proof which is a Christian tactic. The fact that there has never been any evidence of an actual afterlife, not to mention the fact that nobody's ever discovered a human soul, how it functions, or how anyone could possibly retain consciousness after death doesn't mean that we have to prove beyond any doubt that there definitely isn't an afterlife. Once Christians (or even just life after death believers) work out all those details beyond any doubt, then we'll talk.

I don't believe in unicorns, either, even though I can't prove that they're not real.

(July 15, 2011 at 9:20 am)Napoleon Wrote:

(July 15, 2011 at 8:45 am)Rhythm Wrote: Not only is there no evidence for an afterlife, the very idea of an afterlife makes assumptions which are in direct contradiction with almost everything we know about human beings, life, and energy itself.

That's the main point. With the knowledge we possess an afterlife is completely impossible. To deny so is being willfully ignorant.

Argument from incredulity, an ad hominem and incorrect. All we can say with any certainty is that so far there is no evidence for survival after death.There is no positive evidence.Absence of evidence implies (suggests) not,but does not allow an inference (conclusion)

That I disagree with you does not infer I am ignorant. A skeptic,as far as I'm concerned, all questions remain open,especially metaphysical propositions about a question about the existence of god(s),the soul, an afterlife.I do not believe in such things, but concede they are not impossible ,only unlikely.


I reject the notion that truth may be reached through reason alone, I demand evidence. That the existence of an afterlife is so far both unprovable and unfalsifiable is not my problem. It simply means neither proposition has been proved. Consequently. I don't believe, in an afterlife,just as I don't believe in mountain trolls,dragons and fairies at the bottom of my garden

(July 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: The entire question is ass-backward.

"Is there any evidence we don't live on in some way after death?"

Spot on. Absolutely not. Making it a purely metaphysical proposition.

Some of you guys are real bone heads. I am not a fake atheist. I dont believe in any kind of god. That's as far as my atheism goes. My scientific rationality digests other topics, but because science cant observe anything outside of this reality, even though it suggests the likeliness of other realities, science as of now does not discredit life after death. Yes we probably dont see hear smell etc like we do in a body, but we may have a consciousness in some other way.

I have never been into god or religions, even though I have been involved with many over the years out of curiosity. But I have always had a deep confident intuition, whatever that is, that this life is not it. And since not living on sucks more than being eternal, I cant believe it either way, until some absolute evidence is discovered. This will probably not happen.

You guys think you are so fuckin smart, but tell me this: You can assemble a body, or take a dead one, and pump air into its lungs, and pump blood through its veins, but it will not come to life. Until you faggots can tell me what it is that animates a being, and what happens to that source of animation at death, then stfu.

I thought of a good book title: Get an after life: How assholes in this life become bigger assholes in the next.

There are copious neurones that connect and network into systems, thickening and growing while one is in the womb, that eventually "animate a being". Think of hot-wiring a car*.

*I don't fully endorse that analogy

Xonage, you need to put some credit hours into biology. As to your reference of putting air into lungs, pumping blood....you're describing cardiopulmonary resuscitation.....and it does "animate a body" as long as there hasn't been too much damage. That's why we use CPR when people cease to breathe, or their heart ceases to beat.

You know the entire enterprise of life is much more interesting than any fictional soul. The way the machinery works, even for things as "simple" as a plant beats any hand waving explanation of life.

It has been suggested that you are mixed up, xonage, that you want atheism to replicate science, which is not its purpose, and that you are arguing from a position of little leverage beyond "belief." The fact that, despite the copious number of pointers you have received and the diversity of ways in which your thinking error has been shown to you, you choose to believe that there may be life after death suggests a need to cling to dogmatic thinking, be it religious or no. We cannot help you with this. It's your groove.

(July 16, 2011 at 7:12 am)xonage Wrote: You guys think you are so fuckin smart...

...faggots...

I think a nerve has been touched. Why don't we take this one step at a time. First, if you want to prove the existence of an afterlife is possible, you must prove the existence of the soul, or some entity beyond the physical. A change in weight after death is not evidence because there are numerous things that could be, and near death experiences don't count because the human mind is flawed and personal experiences are highly bias.

Now take a deep breath, and proceed from there.

No nerve has been hit, other than there are quite a few posters on here that think they are superior or extra intelligent. As I mentioned, anyone on here that isn't at the level of Tesla, Kaku, etc. etc., you are not that smart. Let me ask you guys this: Are the views that you are fighting for in this thread your own, or are you just regurgitating what you have heard?

Secondly, this argument about "well I cant prove a unicorn doesn't exist blah blah blah." It has no relation to a life after death issue. There is no reason to believe in unicorns, because we have not found a fossil. We might one day, and then we will know that some horse in the past had a horn. This is quite possible.

But the fact that there is a force or an energy, or something that animates a being, this is real, and we dont know how to measure it. We dont know why life suddenly leaves a body. There is a missing piece of the puzzle here.

If a body has no such force, then why cant we make a living being and give it life. The closest we have, our robots, need a power supply. They need an external energy source to make it go. So do we. So the question is, what is that energy source, and where does it go when we die?