Kid admits his going to heaven book was a lie. Publisher will pull book.

[The Clamburglar]

Really? Prove it

lost

 

[ThinkGreen]

This. I do not understand why this concept eludes people. The supernatural is outside the world of science.

aka it's fake

 

[NHB7]

I think one of the big problems with the human race is thinking about some afterlife.
Most likely there is no afterlife.
Make the most out of life and die happy.

I've actually thought a lot about the question "Is it worth looking investigating whether or not there is an afterlife?" I've concluded, "Yes, for some people and no for others."

You see, you are taking an existential perspective: Life is likely meaningless, and even if it is not meaningless we almost certainly will not be able to determine that meaning within a short lifetime, so it is up to us to give our lives meaning and worth.

Some people then draw the logical conclusion then that it is a waste of time to explore whether or not there is an afterlife because that time could have been spent giving your life some preferred meaning or worth. But I to would consider myself an existentialist and personally, I find exploring the possibility of an afterlife enjoyable, rewarding, challenging, and personally meaningful. So even from an existential perspective, it makes sense for me to investigate it because it helps me to feel something about life is worthy and meaningful.

 

[Bukowski82]

evidence? like scientific proof?
so you want science (which is used to measure and observe the natural world) to test and prove the supernatural/metaphysical???

I have my evidence, which i am afraid you would not accept.

but hey, we will never prove anything beyond this universe.

also, if you take a position it is up to you to provide your evidence. but i love how you come right out and say you have no evidence for what you believe like the ignorant always do

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
Some theists maintain that unless atheists can disprove the existence of a god, or gods, their position is untenable. It does, however, depend on which of the many thousands of mankind's gods one has in mind; strangely, such theists cheerfully accept the arguments against every god except their own preferred one.

On like lines, some anti-theists maintain that because theists cannot prove the existence of their chosen god or gods, their position is untenable. A similar fallacy, from the opposite direction.

The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion. If there's no evidence either way, it's a matter of faith.

Negative. Claims not supported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You don't get to assert ridiculous claims about your version of an afterlife and the tell people to disprove you with their own evidence. Lol. What's wrong with you?

 

[Ippwnage]

Negative. Claims not supported by evidence can be dismissed.

You don't get to assert ridiculous claims about your version of an afterlife and the tell people to disprove you with their own evidence. Lol. What's wrong with you?

it is not a ridiculous claim.

as far as that quote, it is not from me. it is from rational wiki.

"

but it seems like you like to make your own rules and try to impose them on others because you cannot argue worth a fuck
the important thing about this though, is if you have to have a claim, you need some evidence/reason for it to be true and what its effects are.
claiming the soul is real is not some ridiculous claim


see this link below from a real website about being rational? sorry, fucking deal with it
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


Some theists maintain that unless atheists can disprove the existence of a god, or gods, their position is untenable. It does, however, depend on which of the many thousands of mankind's gods one has in mind; strangely, such theists cheerfully accept the arguments against every god except their own preferred one.
On like lines, some anti-theists maintain that because theists cannot prove the existence of their chosen god or gods, their position is untenable. A similar fallacy, from the opposite direction.
The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion. If there's no evidence either way, it's a matter of faith.

"

edit- quotes added so you can see i quoted it and did not make it up myself

 

[Ippwnage]

aka it's fake

so if science cannot prove it, then it is false?

 

[BearGrounds]

Your brain is pretty much a computer and it gets shut down, Schaub style.
Who cares about afterlife?
Why even worry about it?
As a matter of fact, I don't like the idea of an afterlife.
Just go through life and try to enjoy it.

There was a good Greek philosopher that mentioned this subject

Spoiler

Had you pegged for a hedonist, judging by your initial post. Turns out I was only slightly off.

 

[Ippwnage]

wrong

proof????

 

[KnightTemplar]

Valhalla>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heaven.

 

[Bay Area]

I wonder if heaven got a ghetto.

 

[Bay Area]

I have. Its a fairly short read and very compelling.

There are commonalities amongst thousands of compiled NDE's that support the notion that consciousness/existence continues after brain death.

Of course it does. Consciousness like everything, is energy. And energy doesn't just cease to exist.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Of course it does. Consciousness like everything, is energy. And energy doesn't just cease to exist.

Agreed.

 

[Nnedd]

Man, sometimes I feel like I'm wasting time.

Then I realize, at least I'm not arguing the existence of the afterlife with some idiot asshole on Sherdog.

 

[Bukowski82]

it is not a ridiculous claim.

as far as that quote, it is not from me. it is from rational wiki.

"

but it seems like you like to make your own rules and try to impose them on others because you cannot argue worth a fuck
the important thing about this though, is if you have to have a claim, you need some evidence/reason for it to be true and what its effects are.
claiming the soul is real is not some ridiculous claim


see this link below from a real website about being rational? sorry, fucking deal with it
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


Some theists maintain that unless atheists can disprove the existence of a god, or gods, their position is untenable. It does, however, depend on which of the many thousands of mankind's gods one has in mind; strangely, such theists cheerfully accept the arguments against every god except their own preferred one.
On like lines, some anti-theists maintain that because theists cannot prove the existence of their chosen god or gods, their position is untenable. A similar fallacy, from the opposite direction.
The burden of proof lies with whoever is making the assertion. If there's no evidence either way, it's a matter of faith.

"

edit- quotes added so you can see i quoted it and did not make it up myself

You seem to have a very tenuous grasp of reality...

That must suck.

 

[Michaelangelo]

You have to be Mormon to go to heaven.

 

[LionExMachina]

Heaven and hell are already here.

 

[El Chimpo]

i saw this movie that was based on a true story once, i think it was called All Dogs Go To Heaven.


now correct me if im wrong, but i dont think any of us are dogs.

 

[Bay Area]

Once you have had an outter body experience, you will think twice about the notion of no afterlife.

A great book on the subject:

 

[Nnedd]

i saw this movie that was based on a true story once, i think it was called All Dogs Go To Heaven.


now correct me if im wrong, but i dont think any of us are dogs.

It was call ALL dogs, not ONLY dogs.

Boom. Burden of proof met.

 

[Ippwnage]

You seem to have a very tenuous grasp of reality...

.

based on what? on me posting a quote from a website that shoots down your dumb ass argument?
billions of people believe in the existence of the soul
it must suck for you having beliefs you cannot even present the slightest evidence of.
i believe things and have my rationale for it.
go back to burger king and get your kid's meal
and here would be some evidence
[YT]3AGNnOk6dhA[/YT]