• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do you believe there is some form of self-conscious life after death?

Do you believe there is some form of self-conscious life after death?

  • Total voters
    177
I voted "Not sure, but I think unlikely". It was the closest to my true opinion which is "No, but you never call tell"
 
It's so damned unfair you know.

Us atheists who know there no life after death, don't have the satisfaction of knowing, that all the theists will find out how wrong they were.:mad:
 
Jodie said:
How is it impossible? Explain it like it really is.
Click to expand...

Well I agree with skeptichaggis on this although I lack his/her delicate tact.

It is impossible for a soul to exist because any self conscious entity must have a physical brain. I you can point to an example of a matter less thinking entity I will have to revise my opinion.
 
skeptichaggis said:
Its impossible for a soul to exist. We now know this for a fact. Only a moral coward would think otherwise.
Click to expand...


Considering that there does not even begin to exist anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing called a ‘soul’…it is also utterly impossible (a logical fallacy) to conclude that it is a fact that it is impossible for a soul to exist.

…but hey, when it comes to the skeptic rank and file, who cares about facts!

Thor 2 said:
Well I agree with skeptichaggis on this although I lack his/her delicate tact.

It is impossible for a soul to exist because any self conscious entity must have a physical brain. I you can point to an example of a matter less thinking entity I will have to revise my opinion.
Click to expand...


Where, when, and how has any of this been empirically established????? There is nothing remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing you call a ‘self’…nor is there anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing you call ‘conscious’…so how is it you find it possible to make these emphatically empirical claims about such things????

…but hey…don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good bout of wishful thinking! You’re skeptics…facts are only useful when you’ve got some Christians to bash. Facts just don’t apply to skeptic ideology!
 
annnnoid said:
Considering that there does not even begin to exist anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing called a ‘soul’…it is also utterly impossible (a logical fallacy) to conclude that it is a fact that it is impossible for a soul to exist.

…but hey, when it comes to the skeptic rank and file, who cares about facts!




Where, when, and how has any of this been empirically established????? There is nothing remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing you call a ‘self’…nor is there anything remotely resembling an empirical definition for or description of this thing you call ‘conscious’…so how is it you find it possible to make these emphatically empirical claims about such things????

…but hey…don’t let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good bout of wishful thinking! You’re skeptics…facts are only useful when you’ve got some Christians to bash. Facts just don’t apply to skeptic ideology!
Click to expand...


Well if you can give us an example of a conscious entity not attached to anything material I will modify my opinion. Can you give an example with proof? (One question mark is sufficient).

What is this stuff about skeptic ideology? Never heard of that one before.
 
Thor 2 said:
Well if you can give us an example of a conscious entity not attached to anything material I will modify my opinion. Can you give an example with proof? (One question mark is sufficient).

What is this stuff about skeptic ideology? Never heard of that one before.
Click to expand...


S’cuse me…you were the one making the dumb claims so don’t go playing ‘shift the goalposts’ with me.

Thor 2 said:
any self conscious entity must have a physical brain
Click to expand...


…prove it!
 
abaddon said:
Sure. There are no examples anywhere of any self-conscious entity without a material brain. None. Nada. Zero.
Click to expand...


You folks are so predictably incestuous. Good thing this isn’t the science section cause this is just about as unscientific as it gets!

No empirical definition of ‘self.’
No empirical definition of ‘conscious.’

…and for those whose understanding of elementary logic has yet to progress beyond first grade…”I haven’t found one yet” is not equivalent to “none exist.”

...but long before you can get to the logic, you have to actually define your terms. What are you even talking about? The ONLY way this claim can be valid is:

a) …if you have en empirical definition for the word ‘self’
b) …if you have an empirical definition for the word ‘conscious’
c) …if you have an empirical explanation for the relationship between the brain and a) and b)

This is how science currently describes c):

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers.”

As for a) and b)…there doesn’t even begin to exist anything remotely resembling an empirical resolution to either of those points…but I can unconditionally guarantee that if you could produce one you’d be a shoe-in for next years Nobel.

A Nobel is worth over a million bucks!

…would sure be better than being an ignorant skeptic who can’t deal with the facts now wouldn’t it.

According to the facts…there does not exist anything remotely resembling empirical definitions for the terms in your claim (unless you can produce some).

…therefore your claim is garbage!

Actually…no, my apologies…it’s not garbage. This is, after all, a religion thread. As a religious claim, as a statement of faith (aka: ideology)…I guess it’s perfectly valid.

So quite alright Thor 2 (and friends)…you’re just exercising your right to religious freedom. Good on ya!

…but if you take it over to the science section…then it’s garbage.

Thor 2 said:
Oh, if I may just add this other thing. Tell us about this skeptics ideology please annnnoid. I am interested to hear about it.
Click to expand...


See above.
 
Last edited:
Dr.Sid said:
Why you keep asking question in universe which has no purpose ?
Click to expand...


It is trivially easy to demonstrate that there is purpose in this universe. You just asked me a question. You are a feature of ‘the universe.’ Your purpose (which, ultimately, is a creation of ‘the universe’) is, I suppose, to solicit an answer. Thus you yourself are evidence that there is purpose in the universe.

…but if you are stating that the universe in totality has no purpose, the claim is incoherent for three obvious reasons:

1) … nobody has come anywhere close to any kind of understanding of ‘the universe in total’ (so it is utterly impossible to determine [or make empirical claims about] what it is that may, or may not, have a ‘purpose’)
2) …we do not have anything remotely resembling an empirical understanding of the word ‘purpose’ (or if there even can be such a thing)
3) …we do not know how such an understanding (of the word ‘purpose’) might be applied to whatever a universe is

Thus your claim is nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom