The Concept of No Afterlife

i didnt just say it can not. i explained WHY it can not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i didnt just say it can not. i explained WHY it can not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
also forgetting the fact that a materialistic brain can only produce the physical/behavioural cnsequence of higher thought/conciounce, not a self interacting/self aware/self conciounce sytem to begin with.

Bardock's coverd most of this, so I'll just say:

That is a personal theory of yours. Neruoscience seems to be leaning in the oppisite direction.

Also, in relation to your other comments, may I point out that science (reductionsism, materialism, whatever you want to throw in there) is here to provide the most FACTUAL model of your world. This is because these methods are the best way to obtain FACT. Science never was intended to give us the most wholistic/integrated/feel-good model of anything.

Its once thing to say that a scientific model is personally unfulfilling or has yet to capture the fill picture (which is it always will be unable to do), its quite another to say that a scienctific model CAN'T solve a given problem, especially since, as you pointed out, we know so little. We might as well be as confident as we can knowing what we know is fact.

Also, don't confuse a very large number with infinity. They're not the same thing.

Originally posted by Alliance
First off, make the distinction between physical energy and spiritual energy. Physical energy obey natural laws. Spiritual energy seems to be nothing more than a product of our own thoughts, which stop once we fail to maintain proper ion gradients in our bodies.

Spiritual energy ? I don't beleive in that.

I beleive physical energy and "spiritual" energy is the same thing. It's all just energy, there's nothing deeper than that (as far as we know).

The energy that our bodies and minds consist of does not cease to exist. What we consist of has existed far before us, and will exist far after us. Do you agree or disagree ?

Originally posted by Alliance
This fake spiritual energy that you talk about is not a natural force, its a perception. It doesn't go anywhere when you die, because it never existed. Even if you claim it exists, its not physical, so enough of your bastardization of the conservation of energy.

I never said anything about "spiritual energy". That is a misintepretation on your part.

Secondly, you need to calm down. You obviously haven't read my opening post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against me, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.

Originally posted by Alliance
Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant.

Matter is constantly changed. That's what I have been saying. But the forms energy takes change as well. Matter is condensed energy.

My point is everything is ever-changing. Nothing is permanent.

The beleif that "nothing happens after we die" is false in my opinion, because it suggests that we simply delete from existance, which is no the case. Everything we consist of continues to exist.

There are processes which will occur with our material for as long as the universe exists.

Originally posted by Alliance
If have one of the same carbon atoms as Hitler, Hitler does not live on in me by any stretch of the imagination. Your position becomes even more absurd when you realize that the carbon atom, when it was formed, belonged to nothing in particular. Hitler just borrowed it, as am I. Thus, you make a rediculous distinction.

I never suggested that you belong to another person. Again, a misintepretation on your part. I hope it's not intentional. You tend to do this a LOT...I will say one thing, and you translate it to suit your argument better. 👇

What I am saying is that we are all created from the same stuff. This "stuff" from which we all consist of does not die out. We continue existing but in different forms.

I personally beleive, All Life is One. The "Individual" is temporary and is just a product of our mind. Everything is interdependent, and nothing truly exists on its own. We all come from the same source-matter and energy, which this Universe is made of.

Let's put it this way: When someone dies, does that mean they no longer exist ?

If so, how can that be ? We have the bodies of Pharoahs preserved for millenia. How can they be non-existant, when their bodies are still intact ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Spiritual energy ? I don't beleive in that.

I beleive physical energy and "spiritual" energy is the same thing. It's all just energy, there's nothing deeper than that (as far as we know).

The energy that our bodies and minds consist of does not cease to exist. What we consist of has existed far before us, and will exist far after us. Do you agree or disagree ?

I [b]never said anything about "spiritual energy". That is a misintepretation on your part.

Secondly, you need to calm down. You obviously haven't read my opening post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against me, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.

Matter is constantly changed. That's what I have been saying. But the forms energy takes change as well. Matter is condensed energy.

My point is everything is ever-changing. Nothing is permanent.

The beleif that "nothing happens after we die" is false in my opinion, because it suggests that we simply delete from existance, which is no the case. Everything we consist of continues to exist.

There are processes which will occur with our material for as long as the universe exists.

I never suggested that you belong to another person. Again, a misintepretation on your part. I hope it's not intentional. You tend to do this a LOT...I will say one thing, and you translate it to suit your argument better. 👇

What I am saying is that we are all created from the same stuff. This "stuff" from which we all consist of does not die out. We continue existing but in different forms.

I personally beleive, All Life is One. The "Individual" is temporary and is just a product of our mind. Everything is interdependent, and nothing truly exists on its own. We all come from the same source-matter and energy, which this Universe is made of.

Let's put it this way: When someone dies, does that mean they no longer exist ?

If so, how can that be ? We have the bodies of Pharoahs preserved for millenia. How can they be non-existant, when their bodies are still intact ? [/B]

He said: Matter is constantly changed. When you die, you decompose and become other things. Since atoms cannot encode any of the type of information, where atoms are and what they were a part of before me is irrelevant.

Therefore, he agrees that your energy goes somewhere and changes whenyou die. I think everyone who has gone to school knows that. When you die, you become the Earth. The Earth then becomes something else. And so on.

When he said spiritual energy, he is refering tothe whole "soul" thing. That is a lie and doesn't exist. There is no soul. Well, there is, but that soul is your internal organs, not some form of energy that keeps you alive then passes directly to another person, as the myth goes.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Spiritual energy ? I don't beleive in that.

I beleive physical energy and "spiritual" energy is the same thing. It's all just energy, there's nothing deeper than that (as far as we know).

The energy that our bodies and minds consist of does not cease to exist. What we consist of has existed far before us, and will exist far after us. Do you agree or disagree ?

I [b]never said anything about "spiritual energy". That is a misintepretation on your part.[/B]

Then, there is nothing special about the electrochemical energy in your mind. Whats all this new age cr*p about "the energy of your mind lives on." What about the energy in my ass? Because its there too. Does this wonderful ass energy live on too? What about the energy from when I was 5. Your body is not a closed system, energy flows in and out your entire life.

Why is it when you die, energy is magically released? What about the heat I transferred to my mother when I was in the womb, do I live on in her? What about the heat I'm radiating now? Is my "person" spreading throughout the air. What about the skin cells that I'm shedding as I type this? Is my person all over the keyboard?

You're making several stupid claims. Your statements like:

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms....Your body and mind continue existence in different forms. Remember that.

are total crap. Here are the flaws with your argument.

1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."

(Why is it that your person inhabits your energy and atoms? You're saying that we are simply these two things combined. I'm saying that we are more than the sum of our parts and do not exist within or are defined by energy and matter.)

2. You have yet to show why the person is contained in their magical 'energy of their mind" and "atoms of the body" throughout their life and not after their death.

(Why is it only after we die we live on, as opposed to continuously "living on throughout our lives? You say when we die, energy dissipates and decomposes. I'm saying this is a continuous process that happens throughout or life and that drawing a distinction at death is ridiculous.

3. How you distinguish one person from another.

(why is it that the slice of turkey I just ate part of me and not part of the turkey. When i sh*t it out tomorrow, is it me? or is it the turkey? or is it what the turkey ate? There is no logical way to compartmentalize an open system. You're saying that at one point, something that has long existed becomes you, but somehow stays you. I'm saying that you are defined as an entity, not as the parts of that entity.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Secondly, you need to calm down. You obviously haven't read my opening post with open eyes, instead you have supplied it with your own bias against me, which is rather immature. Please try to stay objective.

And objective? I'm not the one saying "you're always biased against me."

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
My point is everything is ever-changing. Nothing is permanent.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The beleif that [b]"nothing happens after we die" is false in my opinion, because it suggests that we simply delete from existence, which is no the case. Everything we consist of continues to exist. [/B]

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You tend to do this a LOT...I will say one thing, and you translate it to suit your argument better. 👇

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I personally beleive, [b]All Life is One. The "Individual" is temporary and is just a product of our mind. Everything is interdependent, and nothing truly exists on its own. We all come from the same source-matter and energy, which this Universe is made of.[/B]

Alliance sometimes you are kinda full of self contained crap as if you are all knowing...ya know?

Well, i don't know what you're trying to say, so no...I don't.

Originally posted by debbiejo
Alliance sometimes you are kinda full of self contained crap as if you are all knowing...ya know?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you probably have. They just don't call themself athests.

How can someone believe in demons but not God? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by Alliance
So...what was you point about materialism?

Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Originally posted by Alliance
Bardock's coverd most of this, so I'll just say:

That is a personal theory of yours. Neruoscience seems to be leaning in the oppisite direction.

Also, in relation to your other comments, may I point out that science (reductionsism, materialism, whatever you want to throw in there) is here to provide the most FACTUAL model of your world. This is because these methods are the best way to obtain FACT. Science never was intended to give us the most wholistic/integrated/feel-good model of anything.

Its once thing to say that a scientific model is personally unfulfilling or has yet to capture the fill picture (which is it always will be unable to do), its quite another to say that a scienctific model CAN'T solve a given problem, especially since, as you pointed out, we know so little. We might as well be as confident as we can knowing what we know is fact.

Also, don't confuse a very large number with infinity. They're not the same thing.

nauroscience seems to be leaning in the opposite direction?!?!?!?! 😕

r u serious? well then im sure your not aware of the brain hemisphere deconnection studies conducted on patients whove had their two hemispheres completely disconnected physically from each other{i mean cutting of the corpuss collosum and commisuiry fibres}. in this state it was proven from experimentation that the two halves of the brain have absloutely NO{as in ZERO} "physical" way of contacting with each other and sending information. in other words they can not COMMUNICATE, and it was also proven that they have their own perception and phenomenology. now the most commonsense implication of this is that there two different BRAIN/PERSONALITIES in that person.

HOWEVER, such a person can function pretty much normally and very much retain a SINGULAR personality with memories etc and all other components of a personality and the only difference are lack of SENSUAL awareness concerning the basic senses when and only when perception was emperimentally limited to nerves bringing information to one part of the brain. and even that was overcome in a while while the person STILL retained a whole personality.

there is other evidence, in that in experiments, different parts of rat brains were removed in the same rats and different rats to try and make them forget about certain learned behavious but they cud not make the rats forget. making them think that the behavior wasnt retained just in the physical brain.

more? how about the fact that it is physically deemed impossible right now that human beings can recall entire expiriences and formultate complex thoughts requiring information from all around the physical brain, in the time frames that humans do it, given the speed of electron transfer and the probability of physical processing/logci gates ec in the human brain.

theres a lot of evidence to suggest{the first example being the most well documented, respected and easy to look up} in neuropsychology that there is more to the brain than just the physical makeup. the holographic theory might be able to explain such stuff. but current physics and science can not. im not dissing science at all, im all for it. but we shudnt be close minded about possibilities. current purely MATERIAL constructs of conciousness etc can NOT account for many of the chracteristics of it while thinking physically in established confines.

For me I don’t believe in an “afterlife” as for what makes me will no longer exist which is the sum total of me like the matter in my brain, the biochemical energy and so on. If the energy in my body goes somewhere else or becomes something else it is just that, something else and not me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or maybe he simply supports the position that if the soul actually exists it is not measurable by science at this point.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nauroscience seems to be leaning in the opposite direction?!?!?!?! 😕

Well, if you actually cited experiments that were less than 100 years old you might have a different position.

Trying to describe neuroscience by preforming lobotomies is as about as effective as trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer. Molecular physiology is where its at. If you'd like, I can point out some interesting papers for you.

Also, as you fail to understand my previous point. Just because science has yet to show an answer to a complex problem, doesn't mean its can't. There is no reason to assume any sort of mystic overtones to the human brain. That is simply your way of expressing awe for something that you (or anyone) cannot yet understand. You have simply jumped to a conclusion because of a lack of evidence in this complex problem. That's not a very factual method and historically, such conclusions have been proven wrong.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
How can someone believe in demons but not God? That makes no sense.

Atheism and materialism go hand in hand.

Didn't I address this already. They don't.

It might be the case that they usually do, but to assume that one follows the other is erroneous. Btw, there's a lot more to a materialist belief than "demons", as there are dozens of supposedly paranormal phenomenon with more credibility than the vague moniker of demons. Further, some would even consider the idea that consciousness might be of a different nature than material reality to be "beyond materialism" and similar points of view in the field of consciousness study are actually well-supported by legitimate scientists (though the debate continues and nothing concrete has been established about this "hard" problem of consciousness).

In any case, quit making generalizations about groups of believers (or non-believers, as the case may be) when you're being told by people who know these things better (atheists themselves) that you're wrong. Making generalizations based on statistical study or empirical evidence is one thing, but grouping all atheists together is just as bad as, say, grouping all Christians together. There's lots of variation in both.

Originally posted by Alliance

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Alliance
Exactly.

Usually.

Not referring to economic materialism of course.

Well, if you actually cited experiments that were less than 100 years old you might have a different position.

Trying to describe neuroscience by preforming lobotomies is as about as effective as trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer. Molecular physiology is where its at. If you'd like, I can point out some interesting papers for you.

Also, as you fail to understand my previous point. Just because science has yet to show an answer to a complex problem, doesn't mean its can't. There is no reason to assume any sort of mystic overtones to the human brain. That is simply your way of expressing awe for something that you (or anyone) cannot yet understand. You have simply jumped to a conclusion because of a lack of evidence in this complex problem. That's not a very factual method and historically, such conclusions have been proven wrong.

sigh. re read what i wrote.

nauroscience seems to be leaning in the opposite direction?!?!?!?!

r u serious? well then im sure your not aware of the brain hemisphere deconnection studies conducted on patients whove had their two hemispheres completely disconnected physically from each other{i mean cutting of the corpuss collosum and commisuiry fibres}. in this state it was proven from experimentation that the two halves of the brain have absloutely NO{as in ZERO} "physical" way of contacting with each other and sending information. in other words they can not COMMUNICATE, and it was also proven that they have their own perception and phenomenology. now the most commonsense implication of this is that there two different BRAIN/PERSONALITIES in that person.

HOWEVER, such a person can function pretty much normally and very much retain a SINGULAR personality with memories etc and all other components of a personality and the only difference are lack of SENSUAL awareness concerning the basic senses when and only when perception was emperimentally limited to nerves bringing information to one part of the brain. and even that was overcome in a while while the person STILL retained a whole personality.

there is other evidence, in that in experiments, different parts of rat brains were removed in the same rats and different rats to try and make them forget about certain learned behavious but they cud not make the rats forget. making them think that the behavior wasnt retained just in the physical brain.

more? how about the fact that it is physically deemed impossible right now that human beings can recall entire expiriences and formultate complex thoughts requiring information from all around the physical brain, in the time frames that humans do it, given the speed of electron transfer and the probability of physical processing/logci gates ec in the human brain.

theres a lot of evidence to suggest{the first example being the most well documented, respected and easy to look up} in neuropsychology that there is more to the brain than just the physical makeup. the holographic theory might be able to explain such stuff. but current physics and science can not. im not dissing science at all, im all for it. but we shudnt be close minded about possibilities. current purely MATERIAL constructs of conciousness etc can NOT account for many of the chracteristics of it while thinking physically in established confines.

first off its more like 50 years old. and no there is no new story, the fact about the deconnection remain and they were the most extreme ones attempted medically/willingly thus far.

secondly im saying, SCIENCE AS IT STANDS TODAY. personally, in all likelyhood, the DICIPLINE, called science, as a WHOLE, will change and encompass real explanations of such phenomenon later on. im saying, that from a CURRENT scientific standpoint, it isnt possible to explain such things. as i said, the holographic principle has potential. besides, whats so bad about thinkingabout a little wonder at times? this world is miraculous in ways, bautiful and mysterious. its anything but an attack on science. im saying we shud be broad minded. {think of the flexibility in predictibility brought upon by quantum mechaninc/wave function/reletivity etc. which wasnt present in the clasical newtonian model of classical materialistic predetermination.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Please elaborate.

On the "usually" or the "economics"?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
first off its more like 50 years old. and no there is no new story, the fact about the deconnection remain and they were the most extreme ones attempted medically/willingly thus far.

No new story? Like the fields of molecular physiology, neurochemisty, and genetics? Now new disciplines like molecular-cellular cognition? No new techniques like neuroimaging?

And lol at your "most extreme" comments. Those tell us as much about brain function as cutting off your arm tells you about blood flow. "Extreme" is hardly ever good for scientific experiments. Again, its like trying to cut a diamond with a sledgehammer.

Basically, you need to update your knowledge. I'm no authority in the field, but you're way behind the modern science.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im saying, that from a CURRENT scientific standpoint, it isnt possible to explain such things.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im saying we shud be broad minded.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or maybe he simply supports the position that if the soul actually exists it is not measurable by science at this point.

paperbag3

Originally posted by Alliance
Then, there is nothing special about the electrochemical energy in your mind. Whats all this new age cr*p about "the energy of your mind lives on." What about the energy in my ass? Because its there too. Does this wonderful ass energy live on too? What about the energy from when I was 5. Your body is not a closed system, energy flows in and out your entire life.

1) I never said there was anything special about it. The energy that the mind consists of, is the same your body consists of, and neither dies out.

2) The "New Age" crap is your sad misintepretation of what I said before.

3) The energy in your ass is the same as the energy in your mind: Stubborn and irritable 😆

4) Yes, on your last sentence I agree 👆 Your body is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM, or a "permanent" end all-be all one. The energy flows in and out your entire Life.

Finally, you have something USEFUL to say 👆

I'm proud of you Alliance 🙂

Originally posted by Alliance
Why is it when you die, energy is magically released? What about the heat I transferred to my mother when I was in the womb, do I live on in her? What about the heat I'm radiating now? Is my "person" spreading throughout the air. What about the skin cells that I'm shedding as I type this? Is my person all over the keyboard?

Who said energy is magically released ? Are you being intentionally dense ?

You are totally taking what I said out of context, and replacing it with your own unfounded intepretation 👇

Read what I said again 👇

Originally posted by Alliance
You're making several stupid claims. Your statements like:

are total crap. Here are the flaws with your argument.

1. You have yet to show that the "person" exists in this fantastic "energy of the mind" and "atoms of the body."

I never said the "person" exists. I do not beleive in a Soul.

However, everything you consist of does not simply delete from existance. Like I said before, I beleive All Life is One.

The Identity you inhabit now is temporary. It doesn't last forever. However, I think it is a false idea to think of ourselves as separate and independent from all else.

Originally posted by Alliance
And objective? I'm not the one saying "you're always biased against me."

But you ARE. 👇

You're entire argument was non-objective. Anyone with eyes can see it was an attack mixed with a half assed excuse for an argument.

You are biased against me, and have been ever since our little "Islam" debate. I don't care,because that's okay with me, but don't deny it. Do not pretend that you take an objective stance whenever it comes to something I have to say.

I will answer the rest of your rant in a second...brb

He's just stating generalized opinions without using unbiased facts to back them up.