I might have to read his stuff in earnest, if only to understand the other side. I've read enough synopses, articles, reviews, essays and counter-arguments to have a decent grasp on his work, but it might help anyway. He's a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine, so I'm familiar with some of his work from that (though they sometimes, but not always, have counters written to him as well).
Suffice it to say that I'm being very generous when I call his supposed connections between science and belief tenuous, but I can't speak to all of his arguments just yet.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I might have to read his stuff in earnest, if only to understand the other side. I've read enough synopses, articles, reviews, essays and counter-arguments to have a decent grasp on his work, but it might help anyway. He's a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine, so I'm familiar with some of his work from that (though they sometimes, but not always, have counters written to him as well).Suffice it to say that I'm being very generous when I call his supposed connections between science and belief tenuous, but I can't speak to all of his arguments just yet.
least ur honest. i find his writing intriguing.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
least ur honest. i find his writing intriguing.
Np. And yeah, many find his ideas interesting....it can be dangerous if he's wrong, because it's so enticing, but there's no denying the intuitive allure of some of it.
Just browsing his website, it's easy to see some obvious arguments against him. Spiritual enlightenment is one thing, but weight loss? Anti-aging techniques? Self-help books for about a dozen different audiences? He's making himself into a franchise, marketing himself. His work is as much a business strategy as it is a path to spiritual fulfillment.
Another common complaint on the amazon reviews for his books is that he rarely, if ever, backs his arguments with data. Anecdotal stories are easy to find that seem to enorse ANY belief, but finding evidence should be a necessity for man who has written over 3 dozen books.
When he does provide data, usually in the form of liberally-interpreted quantum mechanics (which I can attest to a bit more confidently), the connections only exist when you pick and choose words and ideas, and ignore their fundamental differences in favor of semantic similarities. A lot of people know a little about quantum physics...which is great for Deepak, because anything besides a passing ackowledgment of it will help you realize his supposed connections don't actually exist. He's dealing with wildly different things, and turning science into psuedo-science to try to justify spiritual beliefs to a science-starved world that feels excited and enlightened to suddenly understand something like "quantum consciousness" and how physics proves our conscious minds exist outisde the material realm (it does nothing of the sort).
...
You want solid evidence for reincarnation or life after death? Read the (largely empirical) findings of Ian Stephenson. It's boring as sin, and not nearly as enticing as Deepak, but it's grounded in far more approachable logic.
Re: The Concept of No Afterlife
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It is no secret, that many [b]Atheists beleive that when we die nothing happens. We simply no longer exist. There is no afterlife, what-so-ever. We just cease to be, and new things are born and they too will die with nothing happening afterwards.I am not Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. I do not consider myself "religious", even though I adhere to Buddhism and Theories on the Law of Attraction.
However, I beleive the Idea that Nothing happens after we Die to be JUST AS FALSE as the beleif in Heaven and Hell after death.
This is why:
Matter and Energy cannot be Created or Destroyed. All States are Temporary, and the only constant is Change.
Ask yourself: If you do not beleive in a Soul or Spirit, or cosmic signature, etc....take a look at yourself. Are you static? Are you Unchanging? Is there any part of yourself which Does not change?
Clearly, the answer is No.
You are EVER CHANGING. Your body, your mind, your thoughts, mentality, emotions, size, skin color, features, shape, etc. Everything changes. As you grow, you change.
IN FACT: Every Six Months every cell in your body is replace by a new cell, through the process of Mitosis.
So, there is nothing about you that is permanent (other than your name, but even that can change). You are not the same person when you die as you were when you were born.
Note This: The atoms that make up your body are billions of years old. They have existed far before you came into being. And when you die, those atoms will still exist forever on. The energy you consist of always existed before you did, and will still exist even after you die.
After you die, your body and the energy of your mind will exist in other forms. You don't simply CEASE TO BE. Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so how the hell can you possibly stop existing?.
There is no stop in the course of nature. Everything continues, and all states are temporary. All states change.
Life may very well be one of those states. Many beleive Death is just a part of the Life Cycle, and we all know that death contributes to allowing new life to continue.
Your body and mind continue existance in different forms. Remember that. You will STILL EXIST after death, but in other form(s). Whether you experience new life or not, is another question. Whatever the "Afterlife" is, we may not know.
But we do know, that you don't just delete from existance. You don't just cease to be. It's scientifically impossible to just stop existing. Saying that nothing happens after death defies the Laws of Physics.
Change is the Only Constant. Everything in the Universe doesn't just begin or end. It always changes. Why would we be any different ? [/B]
that seriously opened my mind
Atheists saying "nothing happens after death" doesn't mean transfers of energy and particles don't take place. Of course they do. It's meant in a spiritual sense, and in the sense that we forever lose our consciousness and sense of identity. Don't let SoD fool you into believing his side just because he misinterprets atheist beliefs and uses it to further his own agenda.
ye good point
i used to think that we did cease to be and that nothing happend after we die
but now reading SODs opening post i didnt really have any thought on what happens after we die and i still dont now
but im wondering IF there is a afterlife......isit different for someone who is buried or cremated? i used to think that when we die that we would dream a never ending dream, but i think this is quite stupid.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Atheists saying "nothing happens after death" doesn't mean transfers of energy and particles don't take place. Of course they do. It's meant in a spiritual sense, and in the sense that we forever lose our consciousness and sense of identity. Don't let SoD fool you into believing his side just because he misinterprets atheist beliefs and uses it to further his own agenda.
Yes, but SoD is referring to "soul energy" whatever that may be, i.e. your personality, identity, consciousness. S/he isn't saying that atheists are wrong to believe that the body simply dies and nothing more after death, rather s/he is saying atheists are wrong to believe that the consciousness is not made up of energy. (Energy that must go on...not simple decomposition.)
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Yes, but SoD is referring to "soul energy" whatever that may be, i.e. your personality, identity, consciousness. S/he isn't saying that atheists are wrong to believe that the body simply dies and nothing more after death, rather s/he is saying atheists are wrong to believe that the consciousness is not made up of energy. (Energy that must go on...not simple decomposition.)
Yes, but it's still nonsense; you might as well argue that since matter can't be destroyed, your house is still there even if it burns to the ground. The fact that the individual atoms that make up the house still exist in the universe doesn't change the fact that, where your house used to be, there is now a smoking ruin with none of the attributes of a house; all the new-age gibberish in the world won't change the fact that your house has, in fact, ceased to be in any sense that matters. Just like you do when you die.
Also, his post contains at least one blatant error; it is not true that every cell in your body is replaced. Significantly, nerve cells generally don't undergo mitosis. Which, since the cells in our brain are what makes us the people we are, is a pretty damn important error.
Originally posted by Gregory
Yes, but it's still nonsense; you might as well argue that since matter can't be destroyed, your house is still there even if it burns to the ground. The fact that the individual atoms that make up the house still exist in the universe doesn't change the fact that, where your house used to be, there is now a smoking ruin with none of the attributes of a house; all the new-age gibberish in the world won't change the fact that your house has, in fact, ceased to be in any sense that matters. Just like you do when you die.Also, his post contains at least one blatant error; it is not true that every cell in your body is replaced. Significantly, nerve cells generally don't undergo mitosis. Which, since the cells in our brain are what makes us the people we are, is a pretty damn important error.
His point could be nonsense, that doesn't matter, it's still important to address and counter it properly.
Your analogy is a false allegory by the way. You can't compare the "soul" with a physical object as it's energy is apparently "spiritual"
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
His point could be nonsense, that doesn't matter, it's still important to address and counter it properly.
I don't see anything "improper" about my response. He argues that because of the conservation of energy, we don't cease to exist. I point out that that's nonsense in practical terms, using a simple example. What's the problem?
(ed: missed your last paragraph) If "spiritiual energy" is different from regular energy, there is no reason to suppose it is conserved. Scientists have never studied spiritual energy; there is no "conservation of spiritual energy" law. Therefore, his argument breaks down before it can even begin. Whereas if "spiritual energy" is the same as the energy we know to be conserved, my analogy is valid.
Originally posted by Gregory
It doesn't matter what he's basing the idea on; if it isn't "normal" energy, than his assumption that it is conserved falls apart, because the conservation of energy law only applies to the sort of energy that physicists study.
I'm not arguing with you, just trying to help figure out where he's coming from, I have to assume hes not an idiot and is basing this theory on something.
Originally posted by Mindship
The thing I don't like about atheism is that, if it's right, you'll never know it.
therefore ur scared to disbelieve, once you can get past the idea that everything is awesome and that heaven is something to strive for, the "truth" becomes kinda obvious. id like for there to be a heaven, but most likely... not gonna happen