death

The body is a machine. The mind is the brain plus the information stored. When the heart stops, that's about it. You're just a machine that isn't running. The information in the brain becomes corrupted within a few minutes of death. There is no "you" at that point. It's similar to what happens to a tape of some music if you destroy the tape.

0 Replies

but my qustion is.. would we still be with our own conscience.. or could be reincarnated?? i mean, i can;t grasp the concept of not being physically aware..

0 Replies

The bible agrees with Brandon on that. When you're dead you're dead. Wait till you see the bible thumpers leap on this one.

0 Replies

revo, if you can cast your mind back to how you felt in the year 1842, you'll have a good idea of how you will feel in 2242.

I think that's the closest anyone can get to understanding the idea of non-existence.

0 Replies

That borne from which no traveler returns . . . we none of us will know until we have "crossed the bar," so i consider this so much chin music . . . which won't prevent me enjoying the fun, and sticking a spoke in the wheels from time to time . . .

0 Replies

revo wrote:

but my qustion is.. would we still be with our own conscience.. or could be reincarnated?? i mean, i can;t grasp the concept of not being physically aware..

The answer to your question is pretty clearly contained in my post. When the machine breaks, the electrical activity in the brain stops, the information is destroyed, and that's all there is.

0 Replies

revo.
You are no different than any other animal that has a brain... once the electrical mechanism that operates the brain ceases to function, your dead meat..... now if you were a cow perhaps, YOU, or the edible parts, would end up in another animal and be assimilated to carry on for a short while, other than that you'll be pushing up daises or put into the oven and cooked to a uneditable crisp.

0 Replies

Are you a cow?

0 Replies

Right Set - my sentiments exactly.

What fascinates me, here and in many other instances on this board an in life in general, is how people put forth their opinions, theories, and suppositions as absolute facts. Not that I think it's presumptious necessarily, but I am absolutely fascinated with the lack of any confusion or questioning by some people on issues that most mortals have no way of knowing the definitive answer to. Sometimes it makes me feel like I must be missing something - like I neglected to take a really important course in the school of "life" where all the secrets were revealed.

Brandon and Lightfoot, how do you know what you say is true? Did someone or something who died tell you? If so that would seem to support quite the opposite view. Not challenging necessarily (well, maybe...) but truly interested in how you've come to such a certain and clear conclusion.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

What fascinates me, here and in many other instances on this board an in life in general, is how people put forth their opinions, theories, and suppositions as absolute facts. Not that I think it's presumptious necessarily, but I am absolutely fascinated with the lack of any confusion or questioning by some people on issues that most mortals have no way of knowing the definitive answer to. Sometimes it makes me feel like I must be missing something - like I neglected to take a really important course in the school of "life" where all the secrets were revealed.

Maybe you did.

It is probably really annoying the way materialists seem to think that many questions that others agonise over have already been answered. But it does sort of make sense. We know that there is matter, and we can't see any signs of anything else, so what reason do we have to even speculate that, for example, there might be life after death?

0 Replies

I have to think about this more fully before I answer in a way I'll truly be satisfied with but I have a question that occurs to me after reading your post.
1) Because you specifically can only see and be convinced of the existence of matter, are you convinced that that's all anyone else can see or has evidence of?

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

Brandon and Lightfoot, how do you know what you say is true? Did someone or something who died tell you? If so that would seem to support quite the opposite view. Not challenging necessarily (well, maybe...) but truly interested in how you've come to such a certain and clear conclusion.

The body is obviously a machine. Fairytales are for children who can't accept an unpleasant truth. Certainly not going to postulate the supernatural.

0 Replies

aidan wrote:

I have to think about this more fully before I answer in a way I'll truly be satisfied with but I have a question that occurs to me after reading your post.
1) Because you specifically can only see and be convinced of the existence of matter, are you convinced that that's all anyone else can see or has evidence of?

Yeah, show me your scientific evidence for the afterlife.

0 Replies

Those who, unlike Brandon, have a clear-headed assessment of science, know that it does not have nor even purport to have, the answers to every question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What each person chooses to believe in matters in which no irrefutable answer can be adduced, and this is definitely such a case, has as much value as what anyone else chooses to believe. When urged to believe in a deity, i say no thanks because there is not sufficient evidence to warrant wasting my time with all of the rigamarole. The same applies to life after death--there is insufficient evidence to do aught but equivocate, so there is no meaningful answer with which one could reasonably guide oneself--including the high priest of the god of science, Our Brandon.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Those who, unlike Brandon, have a clear-headed assessment of science, know that it does not have nor even purport to have, that answers to every question. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What each person chooses to believe in matters in which no irrefutable answer can be adduced, and this is definitely such a case, has as much value as what anyone else chooses to believe. When urged to believe in a deity, i say no thanks because there is not sufficient evidence to warrant wasting my time with all of the rigamarole. The same applies to life after death--there is insufficient evidence to do aught but equivocate, so there is not meaningful answer with which one could reasonably guide oneself--including the high priest of the god of science, Our Brandon.

Find me any post in the years I've been here on A2K in which I purport that science proves either that there is no God or no afterlife. You will not, because I don't. As for the body being just a machine, it appears to be a machine and there is no evidence of a supernatural component. Therefore, there is no basis for introducing a theory of such a supernatural component.

In fact, for decades my position has been that there is no evidence of a God, and that it is foolish to accept theories in the absence of evidence. Since science appears able to explain what we see, since the body certainly appears to be a machine, and since there is no evidence of the supernatural, a reasonable person has no basis for accepting Biblical theories. But go ahead and criticize me for alleged advocacy of things I have never said and do not believe.

0 Replies

I have not done that Brandon, and in your pouting mood, you are unwilling to acknowledge what i have pointed out. Which is that you cannot with any reasonable assurance deny that there is an existence of some kind after death. Although not entirely sure what "biblican" is supposed to mean, i suspect you refer to scripture. No part of what i ever surmise or suggest has any basis in scripture.

0 Replies

We are basically energy and matter. Energy and matter can't be destroyed, only changed. So yes, we do exist after death. Only in different form. Whether or not this is conscious, I can't say. But we do "exist" in a sense.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have not done that Brandon, and in your pouting mood, you are unwilling to acknowledge what i have pointed out. Which is that you cannot with any reasonable assurance deny that there is an existence of some kind after death. Although not entirely sure what "biblican" is supposed to mean...

It's supposed to read "biblical." In hundreds of arguments over many decades, what I have continuously said on this subject is that there is no evidence of God or an afterlife, and that only a fool believes in a specific, complex theory of the universe in the absence of any evidence to support it. I have never alleged that science disproves either the existence of God, or the existence of an afterlife. What I do allege is that science has made a pretty good start towards explaining life, and I see no reason to add a supernatural component with no evidence to suggest it exists.

The totality of your argument here is to criticize me for things that I have never once in my life alleged.

0 Replies

That's just crap . . . here's a hanky, your weeping is getting embarrassing. You jumped in here with both feet to deny something by a back-door route, using the absence of evidence argument. That is all that i have alluded to. I am hardy any description of a masochist, and am not about to waste a moment of my time reading your usually self-congratulatory expositions on the excellence of your understanding of the world vouchsafed you by the great god science.

0 Replies

death

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know