Christianity Is The BEST Religion....

[Whateverist]

There is no basis for suggesting that life can continue after death, so there is no reason to raise that as a possibility.  Death just is the end of a life.  If it wasn't alive it can't die.  If it has died it is no longer alive.  You can't know that there is a supernatural zone where your supernatural soul-body will go when your flesh and blood body dies.  That is just a fantasy that has been told so long by so many that it seems like something you can say publicly to other adults and get agreement.  But for those of us lacking that crazy idea there is reason to give it the slightest consideration.  That part of what you believe is absolutely absurd.

Apparently there is basis for the suggestion.
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-a-ge...ntum-level

But there are some who think our attempts at understanding the nature of consciousness through neuroscience are doomed to fail unless quantum mechanics is involved. World-renowned Oxford University mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose, for one, thinks that consciousness has quantum origins.

You are more impressed with appeals to authority than am I.  Once again you pick one person with no relevant expertise with an odd ball opinion and you wave that cherry proudly like it was the gold standard.  It isn't.  

Life requires energy just as many other things do.  Life itself is not energy.  A light bulb requires electricity to be lit, but the bulb itself is not electricity.  A gas powered car requires fuel to run, but the car itself is not fuel.  How do you come up with this rubbish?

So what you're saying is that just like a car or light bulb, we can bring the human body back to life if supplied with energy?

That your best shot?  Swing and a miss.  Neither was I saying that like those things life too is an inanimate object.  No the analogy is about mistaking what is necessary to sustain something with the thing itself.  Life requires/uses energy but is not itself energy.  

No, if you only want to use science to confirm those parts of your fable that haven't already run aground on reality, then you are obviously someone with no real appreciation for science or how it works.  Nobody hearing you proudly exclaiming how your fable fits with science will pay you any mind so long as they've already heard you dismiss science out of hand where it contradicts your non-negotiable beliefs.

In case you forgot, I issued a challenge to anyone to show where science debunked the bible, not one of you could do it, so saying I dismiss science where It contradicts my beliefs is just an outright lie.

That is not even slightly responsive to what I said.  I'm not interested in what debates you think you've won in the past.  If you have nothing to say concerning your selective regard for science just say so.

[Huggy Bear]

You are more impressed with appeals to authority than am I.  Once again you pick one person with no relevant expertise with an odd ball opinion and you wave that cherry proudly like it was the gold standard.  It isn't.

I didn't realize there was a field of expertise concerning life after death...

So how may people are required in order to draw your attention?  

So what you're saying is that just like a car or light bulb, we can bring the human body back to life if supplied with energy?

That your best shot?  Swing and a miss.  Neither was I saying that like those things life too is an inanimate object.  No the analogy is about mistaking what is necessary to sustain something with the thing itself.  Life requires/uses energy but is not itself energy.

If life "uses" energy as you claim (you compared it to a light bulb and automobile) then all you have to do to bring a dead body back to life is supply energy, correct? The organs of a dead body clearly work when transplanted to a live one, so why not just supply 'energy' to the body as a whole and bring it back to life since that all it lacks?

In case you forgot, I issued a challenge to anyone to show where science debunked the bible, not one of you could do it, so saying I dismiss science where It contradicts my beliefs is just an outright lie.

That is not even slightly responsive to what I said.  I'm not interested in what debates you think you've won in the past.  If you have nothing to say concerning your selective regard for science just say so.

As I explained I'm not selective in regards to science, It's my position that there is no science that debunks the bible, if you think there is then provide it and we'll see if i'm being selective or not.

[Cyberman]

So what you're saying is that just like a car or light bulb, we can bring the human body back to life if supplied with energy?

Are you saying that would be impossible?

[Whateverist]

You are more impressed with appeals to authority than am I.  Once again you pick one person with no relevant expertise with an odd ball opinion and you wave that cherry proudly like it was the gold standard.  It isn't.

I didn't realize there was a field of expertise concerning life after death...

So how may people are required in order to draw your attention?  

That your best shot?  Swing and a miss.  Neither was I saying that like those things life too is an inanimate object.  No the analogy is about mistaking what is necessary to sustain something with the thing itself.  Life requires/uses energy but is not itself energy.

If life "uses" energy as you claim (you compared it to a light bulb and automobile) then all you have to do to bring a dead body back to life is supply energy, correct? The organs of a dead body clearly work when transplanted to a live one, so why not just supply 'energy' to the body as a whole and bring it back to life since that all it lacks?

That is not even slightly responsive to what I said.  I'm not interested in what debates you think you've won in the past.  If you have nothing to say concerning your selective regard for science just say so.

As I explained I'm not selective in regards to science, It's my position that there is no science that debunks the bible, if you think there is then provide it and we'll see if i'm being selective or not.

More words would just be wasted on you.

[KevinM1]

I'll ask: how would one supply energy to a dead body?

[vulcanlogician]

I'll ask: how would one supply energy to a dead body?

Lightning?

[KevinM1]

Hehe

But, seriously, while the layperson often thinks that defibrillation jump starts a person's heart, in actuality it's used when the heart is suffering from a dysrhythmia.  Specifically, it's used to force the heart to get its electrical pulses firing in a regular rhythm again.  It's useless if the heart has actually stopped.

CPR itself is more about keeping blood flowing to the brain than anything else.  And even with chest compression, there's no guarantee that a viable defibrillation rhythm will occur.

And, really, all of this is dancing around one important fact: people die for a reason.  Whether it's trauma, disease, or age-related organ failure, dead bodies are dead because they can no longer sustain life.  There's a reason why the vast majority of people who need CPR (which is an infusion of kinetic energy (chest compression) and often electricity (defibrillation)) still die (~37% survival rate in the best circumstances (trained professional, shockable heart rhythm, supplementary equipment, witness to ensure correctness, etc.) shortly after measures are taken, even if they're able to achieve spontaneous circulation again.

It should also be noted that CPR isn't performed on the dead, but the unresponsive.

So, yeah... how does one supply a dead body energy, and how does that revive it?

[Cyberman]

Apparently it doesn't. Which could be interesting.

[LadyForCamus]

This is just a snippet of what science has to say on the subject of life after death. Not that I think you’re going to give the article a modicum of sincere consideration, seeing as it doesn’t contain any bible passages.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...ly-be-you/

First of all, it's clear that your article isn't objective.

Not objective?  That’s what rational skepticism is.  It means taking a neutral position; the position of withholding belief in a claim, until there is enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.  If that’s not an objective approach to you, then what is?

This idea is not too far afield from a real theory called quantum consciousness, proffered by a wide range of people, from physicist Roger Penrose to physician Deepak Chopra. Some versions hold that our mind is not strictly the product of our brain and that consciousness exists separately from material substance, so the death of your physical body is not the end of your conscious existence.

How does this disagree with what I've been saying?

It doesn’t, but then the article continues on to explain how these quantum theories are not compatible with demonstrable scientific facts.  That was kind of the whole point of the article.

The film triggered a number of problems I have identified with all such concepts, both scientific and religious.

[LuisDantas]

Christianity is the best religion because you'll have a god that you can trust to lead you to the light, a god that will help you through dark times.

Why do atheists have aversion to the fact that there is an afterlife and that there is a god?

Does any atheists care to respond?

"Fact"?