The brain

[Angrboda]

Schwartz devotes the entirety of chapter 18 of The Afterlife Experiments to “How Our Lives Might Change” if “science proves human souls live forever.” He claims that “if you knew, once and for all, that consciousness stayed with us forever,” then “you would realize and believe that … your time here on the earth is for the purpose of learning advance lessons of love and compassion, and for you to honor the many gifts you have received by learning how to give to your family, friends, community, and the world as a whole” (238).

Thus far, believing in the living soul hypothesis hasn’t led to a widespread adherence to the noble values he lists. Why would scientific proof make things any different? It’s not like the believers in spirits doubt that they will live forever or be reincarnated, so why would these data change things? For example, Schwartz seems to think that if we had scientific proof of the afterlife, we wouldn’t exploit the earth’s resources with abandon (241). Yet, thousands of years of very strong belief in the afterlife by the majority of our species has not produced a very loving attitude towards the planet. We can’t blame the atheistic materialist for destroying our environment. The vast majority of the destroyers are strong believers in the afterlife hypothesis. The vast majority of those who are raping the earth and exploiting our natural resources to the detriment of humankind believe in spirits and do not doubt that they will live forever. Why would they stop being selfish and destructive once the scientific proof is in that there is an afterlife? The destroyers now rationalize their behavior to justify it. Even if they had scientific proof of the afterlife, it is likely that they would find a way to justify continuing their current behaviors, lifestyles, and values.

. . . . . .

Finally, Schwartz is hopeful that scientific proof of the afterlife might bring religious institutions together. However, strong belief in the spirit world hasn’t united religions in the past. Schwartz offers no reason to think that having scientific proof of the spirit world will have a significant effect on institutional harmony among Muslims and Christians, or Jews and Muslims, or Hindus and Sikhs, or Muslims and Baha’i, or Hindus and Muslims. In short, if Schwartz is right, nothing will be any different than it is now. How much more useless could a discovery be than one that will probably go by unnoticed?

What if Gary Schwartz is right?

[Alan V]

Schwartz devotes the entirety of chapter 18 of The Afterlife Experiments to “How Our Lives Might Change” if “science proves human souls live forever.” He claims that “if you knew, once and for all, that consciousness stayed with us forever,” then “you would realize and believe that … your time here on the earth is for the purpose of learning advance lessons of love and compassion, and for you to honor the many gifts you have received by learning how to give to your family, friends, community, and the world as a whole” (238).

Consciousness isn't even continuous in life.

[Drich]

Try harder.

I think I got what I came here for. that being a cross section of people who think for themselves, verse atheists of "faith"  I skimmed through the answers already and before I blow you all up one at a time, I want to first show you that only maybe one or two of you truly thinks for themselves. meaning they took the info provided and moved to discredit the info based on addressing the points made in the video or articles. 

The rest of you are faith based atheists. meaing you simply hold on to the current model of what is considered 'truth/scientific fact' and refuse to challenge it unless your atheist culture were to move that way and provide you with the reasons why. Meaning you can not take new info annalize it andaccet or discredit it on your own. you are stuck in what you believe till a dawkins or someone of good standing in your community tells you what to think. then you will quote and paste his work even if it does not directly address what I had to say.

which leaves yu with the one move I've seen repeated over and over for three pages. Ad Hom attack. Rather than address the data provided you moved to destroy the messenger rather than address the message.

How stupid or How indoctrinated your are personally depends on where you tried to attack me personally, (meaning if you discredit me my message dies/but do not understand this is not my message but a scientific theory gaining ground in YOUR community hence the video and 10 pages of data with 10 different explanations as to how this theory may apply.) or you tried to attack the authors. (again same method of logical fallacy in a ad hom attack on an individual rather than addressing one scrape of data provided.) Like oh, you quoted such and such, everyone knows this guy is biased... Again that is an ad hom attack.. So what/who cares what others think about a individual, is this elementary school? can information only be sourced through the popular kids? Why not take the info provided and show it is wrong rather than poo poo on a person? oh, that's right it's because you can't. you all literally can't do that as that is not how your atheistic society works. Your's is a belief built on peer pressure and populism. Why be what you demand all Christians to be when you can just make fun of what you do't like?

Look for yourselves and ask your self did the poster attack Drich for being 'stupid' or did the poster attack the author or the video itself? Or was the poster one of the smart people who actually is addressing content? Hint that happened 1 maybe 2 times. I sa maybe 2 because the poster did not get that a variance on the subject was not what was being discussed, but rather the idea that a brain being used as a receiver rather than a harddrive was the point. how deep into it's ability to receive or cross receive other inputs was moot. Either way point was awarded for trying. then one person stood out watched the video and made counter points. This is the only not stupid person here. (besides me of course)

For all of you who attack me or the authors of the story with out addressing content, you are the blind mob. you are the hypocrites, you are the christians when it is popular to be christian (post 9-11) and you are the atheist because for not other reason that is what you want.

you don't understand or know why you believe what you believe. you do it because it allows you to do what you want/live without the rules or boundaries...
Which beggs the question why do atheist believe what they believe is it for truth or swagg?

Ironically, in living this way you actually bind yourself to the law and morality of the society, which as history has proven over and over and over again will turn out to be far more oppressive than anything God demands of us in the bible.

To those who wrote 3 pages of insult and ad hom attack rather than address any points given in the source material, know your beliefs are faith based no matter what it is you believe about God country, government and or life. as you don't seem to have the tools to identify a subject matter and discuss evidence or points that create a topic. you live life according to what 'feels right.' So what is the harm in that? Ask a jew from 1930's germany, how is it wrong for a soceity to live according to what 'feels right' rather thn to live by a God OR IN THIS CASE SCIENCE ITSELF!!!

You simply want to believe what you want to believe and try damn hard to destroy everything else that does not contribute itself to your world view.

[I_am_not_mafia]

you live life according to what 'feels right.' So what is the harm in that? Ask a jew from 1930's germany, how is it wrong for a soceity to live according to what 'feels right' rather thn to live by a God OR IN THIS CASE SCIENCE ITSELF!!!

Didn't take long for Godwin's law to kick in.

[Angrboda]

Try harder.

I think I got what I came here for. that being a cross section of people who think for themselves, verse atheists of "faith"  I skimmed through the answers already and before I blow you all up one at a time, I want to first show you that only maybe one or two of you truly thinks for themselves. meaning they took the info provided and moved to discredit the info based on addressing the points made in the video or articles. 

The rest of you are faith based atheists. meaing you simply hold on to the current model of what is considered 'truth/scientific fact' and refuse to challenge it unless your atheist culture were to move that way and provide you with the reasons why. Meaning you can not take new info annalize it andaccet or discredit it on your own. you are stuck in what you believe till a dawkins or someone of good standing in your community tells you what to think. then you will quote and paste his work even if it does not directly address what I had to say .... Why not take the info provided and show it is wrong rather than poo poo on a person? oh, that's right it's because you can't. you all literally can't do that as that is not how your atheistic society works. Your's is a belief built on peer pressure and populism. Why be what you demand all Christians to be when you can just make fun of what you do't like?

Like many a shallow thinker, you conflate "did not" with "can not". That someone did not do something on one occasion does not mean that they are incapable of doing so, nor that they have not done so outside of this specific context. Thus your conclusion does not follow.

[SteelCurtain]

I love the Google-search-as-evidence. Solid.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHB...Jz-gSDpsJU

[Drich]

First of all, his analogy is wrong.  No examination of the circuitry of a television leads us to conclude that the television is the source of the signal, so he's simply wrong in trying to draw a parallel there.  So, no, we don't need to draw upon additional evidence in the case of the brain because we haven't concluded that the television is the source of the signal.  His analogy is invalid, therefore his conclusions based on that analogy do not hold.  Beyond that, his entire spiel is basically one long argument from ignorance.  Science can't explain it, therefore God!  We have good evidence that consciousness and the brain are related.  Whether you find that evidence compelling or not is a matter of opinion.  

Really?  Gary Schwartz?  You have gone full troll on us, Drich.

I and a whole crap load of other scientist disagree including tesla edison and einstein.. I know those guys are all old but the proof is in the puddn' jerogie..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7bu26pp2Zs

Now from an engineering perspective no other 'proof is needed.' 

IF ifact this kid can control this car by wearing a head set designed to pick up externally transmitted brain activity the your argument is moot.

Do I really need to explain any further?

If the brain is self contained then why does it transmit electrical commands through the skull?

The fact that you are ware of your 5 senses/6 means the brain also receives electrical activity.

Again argument over from an engineering perspective. the concept is proofed by our tactile senses, and the neural transmission of electrical signals that control a car by no internal connection but the picking up of neural waved transmitted by the brain through the skull into the neural receiver simply worn by the kid controlling the car.

[LadyForCamus]

The scientific answer is in an alternate dimension, meaning we die here and wake up there

Oh, that’s the “scientific” answer, Drich?  Thanks for the laugh.

Btw, did you even bother to glance at page one of your google search results? Do you come up with stuff while jerking off with the other hand?

[Drich]

I think I got what I came here for. that being a cross section of people who think for themselves, verse atheists of "faith"  I skimmed through the answers already and before I blow you all up one at a time, I want to first show you that only maybe one or two of you truly thinks for themselves. meaning they took the info provided and moved to discredit the info based on addressing the points made in the video or articles. 

The rest of you are faith based atheists. meaing you simply hold on to the current model of what is considered 'truth/scientific fact' and refuse to challenge it unless your atheist culture were to move that way and provide you with the reasons why. Meaning you can not take new info annalize it andaccet or discredit it on your own. you are stuck in what you believe till a dawkins or someone of good standing in your community tells you what to think. then you will quote and paste his work even if it does not directly address what I had to say .... Why not take the info provided and show it is wrong rather than poo poo on a person? oh, that's right it's because you can't. you all literally can't do that as that is not how your atheistic society works. Your's is a belief built on peer pressure and populism. Why be what you demand all Christians to be when you can just make fun of what you do't like?

Like many a shallow thinker, you conflate "did not" with "can not".  That someone did not do something on one occasion does not mean that they are incapable of doing so, nor that they have not done so outside of this specific context.  Thus your conclusion does not follow.

well you just excused yourself from the list of 'thinker'

let me say first if I opened with this statement, meaning first time here. first post ever, and I drew these conclusions you'd be 100% correct.

but it's not my first time at bat here is it?

It's not my first go round with the same names, the same response the same people give over and over again. there is a huge difference between did not and can not. Do you honestly think after 6 or 7 years here, I can not make that distinction? In fact I most certainly did when I divided the room into people who can and did Identify the subject matter and addressed those point from those who just ad hom attack me for brig the story or authors of said stories.

Those who can make intelligent arguments do, (you did)  those who can't, sling poop and scream loudly as their proud ancestors did. In their 'feeling' they think if they can get the mob to hate someone then whatever message the unpopular one has dies.. they do things this way because they do not know how to challenge facts.

 People attack people rather than ides or facts because they can't. they are broken inside and can not allow emotions to go unchecked. they think with feeling, and not facts. they only pretend to use fact when a smarter person shows them how it may apply. but challenge those facts, without further instruction from the smarter person, they go back to attacking individuals and throwing their poo at them again, in an attempt to win the popular vote..

Which is the real point to this story.

You have facts you have scientific theory and approval, but because it works against your anti god narrative they hate this idea... because there is no direction from the broader community, the majority on faith (ignoring all the scientific data provided) try and win a popularity contest...

Which sums up what most atheist belief systems are based on.

Faith and popular culture. because when "Scientific fact turn on the coe belief" they turn on science.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I love the Google-search-as-evidence. Solid.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHB...Jz-gSDpsJU

Yeah and how he hasn't even put forward any particular hypothesis to discuss except some vague woo about the brain receiving consciousness and memories. Then when we don't discuss the details he hasn't given us, he uses it to accuse us of having faith.