Daily reminder for theists: Science has already disproved the afterlife

[TheAwesomeGuy]

Consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain working properly. Shut the brain down and conciousness stops, this can be seen with general anesthesia when the brain is functioning on a low level and no consciousness is present. Once the drugs wear off and the electrical activity in the brain resumes, conciseness returns. Altering the brain with drugs or surgery produces huge personality changes, further showing the nature of conciousness as existing in the brain. No soul steps in to help someone who has had a car crash and can't remember their own family.

When you die, your brain is destroyed, and consciousness is lost forever with it. You just go back to the state of non existence you were in before you were conceived. No heaven, no hell, just non existence.

Any debate agiainst this objective fact needs to either draw on solid evidence (there is none), or present a strong logical argument

[ronnie09]

[Water_American]

oops wrong pic heres the one I was going for

[TheAwesomeGuy]

ITT: strong counter arguments

[iHateDeadlifts]

firm believe of Christ reporting in




I don't care how factual your argument is, your never going to refute faith. And your never going to change my mind. So goodluck being an edgy teenager with your 30 minute anti-Jesus youtube videos you encountered, but this aint gon work for me.

[axiom15]

Brb killing myself

[Water_American]

OP is extremely edgy. He's practically next Dawkins. The rest of us just don't understand him, we can't understand him. He is intellectually superior and everyone at his high school lunch table knows it!

[ffguitarist14]

firm believe of Christ reporting in




I don't care how factual your argument is, your never going to refute faith. And your never going to change my mind. So goodluck being an edgy teenager with your 30 minute anti-Jesus youtube videos you encountered, but this aint gon work for me.

I've read this a few times and still can't tell if this is sarcasm or not. Honestly I'm really not trying to be a dick if you're srs... just really curious because it's tough to tell

[Highwind7]

.....aaaaaaand banned.

[GJLuke]

Consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain working properly. Shut the brain down and conciousness stops, this can be seen with general anesthesia when the brain is functioning on a low level and no consciousness is present. Once the drugs wear off and the electrical activity in the brain resumes, conciseness returns. Altering the brain with drugs or surgery produces huge personality changes, further showing the nature of conciousness as existing in the brain. No soul steps in to help someone who has had a car crash and can't remember their own family.

When you die, your brain is destroyed, and consciousness is lost forever with it. You just go back to the state of non existence you were in before you were conceived. No heaven, no hell, just non existence.

Any debate agiainst this objective fact needs to either draw on solid evidence (there is none), or present a strong logical argument

How do you know your consciousness is located in your brain though?

And that your body is not just like a "vehicle" for your consciousness for the time being?

Humans are to cars, as Consciousnesses are to bodies.

?

Read "AutoBiography of a Yogi". He has visited the "Astral planes" and communicated with people in the after life.

Read "Be Here Now". This author has taken shrooms and has had "out of body experiences" where his consciousnesses was not located in his body / brain.

I heard Aubrey Marcus did ayahuasca and had a conversation with his dead grandma in spirit form.. (maybe it was just his mind's projections though..)


Kind of scary to think about too be honest..

I think reincarnation / the afterlife is real brah

[moldoo]

oops wrong pic heres the one I was going for

[Tornach]

.....aaaaaaand banned.

hue hue hue

[krazy33]

Since when do you think they have solid proof of consciousness?

Ive done lots of research in this field.. theres no proof

There still COULD be more to cover

There are quantum mechanical theories regarding consciousness and how it comes about..

Technically, theres still no proof of a "material world" if one could ever prove that anything is not just a conjuration of the mind (which seems hard to do given you need a mind to prove it)

I also believe theres still debate within physics whether the "observer" in the dual-split experiment means "measurement" or a literal observer as they agree that "observer" is used rather loosely

Im not saying this is definitively true.. but there are still lots of questions, and fields dedicated to discerning consciousness. Again, with consciousness and quantum mechanics having potential implications:

"Observation not only disturbs what has to be measured, they produce it. We compel the electron to assume a definite position. We ourselves produce the results of the measurement. (2)

A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual. (R.C. Henry, “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)"

More from sam

You are not aware of the electrochemical events occurring at each of the trillion synapses in your brain at this moment. But you are aware, however dimly, of sights, sounds, sensations, thoughts, and moods. At the level of your experience, you are not a body of cells, organelles, and atoms; you are consciousness and its ever-changing contents, passing through various stages of wakefulness and sleep, and from cradle to grave.

The term “consciousness” is notoriously difficult to define. Consequently, many a debate about its character has been waged without the participants’ finding even a common topic as common ground. By “consciousness,” I mean simply “sentience,” in the most unadorned sense. To use the philosopher Thomas Nagel’s construction: A creature is conscious if there is “something that it is like” to be this creature; an event is consciously perceived if there is “something that it is like” to perceive it. ⁠Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter of subjective experience. Either the lights are on, or they are not.[1]"

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to. The painfulness of pain, for instance, puts in an appearance only in consciousness.

will bet youve never REALLY examined any of this

[iceypain]

no amount of a posteriori knowledge or empirical testing can prove/disprove the metaphysical...

[Water_American]

this is a picture of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

[VinnyPazRules]

Consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain working properly. Shut the brain down and conciousness stops, this can be seen with general anesthesia when the brain is functioning on a low level and no consciousness is present. Once the drugs wear off and the electrical activity in the brain resumes, conciseness returns. Altering the brain with drugs or surgery produces huge personality changes, further showing the nature of conciousness as existing in the brain. No soul steps in to help someone who has had a car crash and can't remember their own family.

When you die, your brain is destroyed, and consciousness is lost forever with it. You just go back to the state of non existence you were in before you were conceived. No heaven, no hell, just non existence.

Any debate agiainst this objective fact needs to either draw on solid evidence (there is none), or present a strong logical argument

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6m2iHrKoQXhSFg

Feel the burn!!!

[Smob3]

Consciousness is just an emergent property of the brain working properly. Shut the brain down and conciousness stops, this can be seen with general anesthesia when the brain is functioning on a low level and no consciousness is present. Once the drugs wear off and the electrical activity in the brain resumes, conciseness returns. Altering the brain with drugs or surgery produces huge personality changes, further showing the nature of conciousness as existing in the brain. No soul steps in to help someone who has had a car crash and can't remember their own family.

When you die, your brain is destroyed, and consciousness is lost forever with it. You just go back to the state of non existence you were in before you were conceived. No heaven, no hell, just non existence.

Any debate agiainst this objective fact needs to either draw on solid evidence (there is none), or present a strong logical argument

I'm an atheist and while the idea of an afterlife is baseless, saying that has been disproved is inaccurate.

1) Your logic assumes that consciousness is solely a function of living brain cells. There's no evidence that this is the case. You presume that, but how exactly do you know? By measuring brain activity? Strong circular reasoning.

2) Equating consciousness with a "soul" is irrelevant. Unlike "souls", we know that consciousness exists. Also, consciousness and memory are not the same thing.

3) Similarly, if we go even further, this is based on the premise that there is only one "universe", and thus only one set of physical laws that exist. There's no reason to assume other universes exist, but again, it isn't factually disproved. We're barely on the verge of this concept.

Conclusion: It is correct to say that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and thus it is more than reasonable to assume there isn't one. But claiming that it is factually false is baseless.

[liftasaurus]

the **** even are we

[Woodyy]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...6m2iHrKoQXhSFg

Feel the burn!!!

That would be more interesting if they actually put forward the evidence, all we get is about 30 word summary of what they commonly "felt". Also, how can they distinguish between having these "feelings" shortly before death and when they are actually dead. It seems crazy to be able to confidently say those things happened after death..

[weltweitefurcht]

I am not convinced that we aren't living inside some large brain, like some little bacteria that has no comprehension of what its environment really is.

Energy flows through the universe, energy flows through a brain.

The fact that space dust can be assembled somehow into a "brain" and then consciously realize it is space dust and think about itself is sci-fi in itself.

[LexBrah]

Isnt it the chemical DMT/DZT? (something like that) that gets released in HUGE amounts when you die, or just before you die and that is when 'you see your entire life flash before your eyes' etc.. What if the 'afterlife' is actually just a crazy long trip.

I read about this dude on the internet who had a motorbike accident or something, knocked himself out and literally lived out like the next 25 years of his life or something, met this beautiful woman, had kids, had a good job and all that - then one morning his wife was like 'oh honey whats the time?' and he couldn't see any hands on the clock and then he woke up in hospital. The time difference was only like 6 hours or something, but he thought it was 25 years.

[Ausbody]

no amount of a posteriori knowledge or empirical testing can prove/disprove the metaphysical...

this

/thread