Atheists is there life after death

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No matter what you believe, the research will continue. But so far the data do not suggest 'eternal oblivion'.

 

Yes it does. Again put simply 

The mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

We know how atoms work

There is no way that what is 'you' to survive the process of death. 

[Rlyeh]

3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No doubt, the brain plays an incredibly important role. But our mind cannot be confined to what’s inside our skull, or even our body. If the receiver (physical brain) dies, ultimately the signal (mind) will return to it's source.

Apparently it can be confined to your skull if the brain can shut it down.

If the mind is a signal, how can a receiver switch it off? 

[psyche101]

58 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I have read that book it's fascinating. But it's more to do with self awerness and or consciousness and where the line stops or starts regarding being dead.

It's makes claims regarding the afterlife which really can't be substantiated. Other than that it's very well researched.

It lists a lot of NDEs but I'm wondering if Parnia is exploring the ideas of shutdown? 

You know how hearing is considered the last sense to go, I'm thinking what if a connectome shuts down gradually creating the hallucinations of NDEs? 

We have created a model of one:

Now this is speculation and I realise not at all associated with the book but what if those patterns shut down in order, and maybe something like 10% could 'reboot' it? 

Just feels more like where Parnia would be taking that research? Dunno, just a guess. It would explain a lot too I reckon. 

[Davros of Skaro]

8 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

No matter what you believe, the research will continue.

That's a good thing. 

8 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

But so far the data do not suggest 'eternal oblivion'.

You're misrepresenting the data so far.

[Only_]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

The mind is the brain

The brain is made of atoms

We know how atoms work

There is no way that what is 'you' to survive the process of death. 

Is that the New Atheist's Creed?

Edited April 4, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Is that the New atheist's creed or a prayer?

Seems to be

[Mr Guitar]

Maybe we should be asking "is there life after life?". Nope, probably not.

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Is that the New Atheist's Creed?

It is fact as simply put as it can possibly be. Is it still beyond you? 

[Podo]

23 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

It's an assumption. There is simply nothing to indicate that eternal oblivion is the "most logical conclusion'', except one own's biases. We don't know what's going to happen to us when we die. That's the fact. Everything else is a matter of beliefs and assumptions. Eternal oblivion is no more likely than a cloud paradise with great food and naked, sexy people and beautiful nature and treasures. In fact, it's pretty irrational. Why would we be given a consciousness if it was just to experience oblivion? Surely there would be some means to engage with our surrounds.

Tactitly untrue. Just because we don't empirically know doesn't mean we can't draw logical conclusions. There is every reason to think that death is the end of consciousness and no reason to think that it isn't. The current body of evidence shows that all brain activity ceases at death, in all living creatures. Therefore, it is sensible to conclude that it is most likely that consciousness, since it is directly tied to brain activity, also ceases. Your nonsense cloud paradise has no precedent in any evidence whatsoever, and is therefore less likely because nothing supports it. Even if a cloud paradise DOES exist, it makes more sense to hedge your bets on the oblivion option because the only evidence we have points to that one. 

The bolding in your quote is added by me, because that is a huge baseless claim right there. You are assuming that we have been given consciousness, which there (also) is no evidence to support. If you believe that, that's fine, but there's no evidence backing it up, so you need to acknowledge that it holds no weight in your conclusion, since the conclusion is hinging on a baseless assumption. 

[Only_]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It is fact as simply put as it can possibly be. Is it still beyond you? 

It sounds like brief authoritative formula of religious beliefs or dogma.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

2 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

It sounds like  brief authoritative formula of religious belief or dogmas.

I understand that your persuasion doesn't offer you much breadth in understanding and although I have explained this to you many times you still don't seem to get it. 

Dogma is a philosophy put forward by one as absolute truth with no evidence or explanation. 

That's not what this is. 

Its a conclusion based on the results of body farms, medical records, and physics. It's not one source providing this answer, it's the culmination of many sources all driving towards the conclusion. 

You can believe that we don't understand atoms, you can believe the mind is not the brain, that's not what the evidence says though, so your wrong when you just make stuff up and state its an alternative theory, it's not. It's a cultural ideal that you are fond of. Evidence does not support that conclusion. The book you posted does not support that conclusion. Nothing supports that conclusion. It's just a man made idea to comfort some of us about the thought of death, and a means to control people through religion. NDEs are simple convenient anecdotes derived from hallucination that give some hope, nothing more. 

[Only_]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

Dogma is a philosophy put forward by one as absolute truth with no evidence or explanation.

A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. This is exactly what you are putting forward with statements like ''The mind is the brain'' or ''There is no way that what is 'you' to survive the process of death'' even though that has never been proven, only assumed. It still very much debated and scientists like Sam Parnia or Pim Van Lommel are proving consciousness survives death.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Rlyeh]

11 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Is that the New Atheist's Creed?

Isn't that always the case when reality contradicts the believer's world view? The Big Bang, Evolution? Nonsense. God did it.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

A dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Yes that the dictionary definition. Perhaps you need to look at the definition of incontrovertible? 

incontrovertible

ˌɪnkɒntrəˈvəːtɪb(ə)l/

adjective

1. not able to be denied or disputed.

    

Quote

This is exactly what you are putting forward with statements like ''The mind is the brain'' or ''There is no way that what is 'you' to survive the process of death'' even though that has never been proven, only assumed.

Science is always open to new evidence. Ive not only told you this I've given very plain examples such as phlogiston. Science was rewritten at the discovery of elements and the periodic table was born. That's disputed and dispute accepted. 

As I have explained to you numerous times, that is the best fit to the data. There is no data supporting an afterlife. You simply don't want to believe that and do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly yelling lalala I can't hear you lalala..... 

We do know how atoms work. You must realise this by now. There might be some more to learn, but what we do know is very unlikely to change. We have modeled synapses. We have seen a memory being chemically formed, we can predict brain damage results, we can perform lobotomies. 

You never counter all the information. You smugly fold your arms and go back into lala mode. It's real, it exists, it's put into practice thousands of times a day across the globe. How can it be at fault when it's knowledge we use each and every day with perfect prediction? 

Quote

It still very much debated

Dicussed, its not debated. There is no evidence for an afterlife to debate against what we know. 

Quote

and scientists like Sam Parnia

Just no. Sam Parnia does not support the idea of an afterlife. The book you posted does not support an afterlife concept. Your misreading the critique and now you think that's what the book is about. 

Its not. Read it. 

Sam Parnia for the umpteenth time  is trying to see if consciousness can be rebooted after death, and if we can extend revival times after what is now considered the point of no return. 

He is not  I repeat, is not, supporting the notion of an afterlife. That's not what the AWARE project does. I can only assume you are making such misleading statements deliberately and lying to support your personal ideas. 

You have not provided statements by Parnia that supports your wild claims. You have only posted other third party opinions and your own interpretation of snippets you have read about Parnia and the aware project. NDEs are hallucinations, nothing more real than a dream. There is no good reason to think otherwise. 

Quote

or Pim Van Lommel are proving consciousness survives death.

 

The only thing Lommel is proving is he is a sellout. None of his colleagues find his work worthy,  all claim it pseudoscience and gross misinterpretation of fact. He is writing paperbacks, not papers, because his ideas are plain silly and entirely unsupported. Neurobiologists and anesthesists have read the book and offered professional evaluations and they are more qualified to do so than you or I. 

That's why he is writing paperbacks, not papers. That's why there are no lectures on his work. That's why he hasn't practised since 2003. If you are serious about searching for evidence your going the wrong way about it every time. Lommel is as bad as Jonathan Wells or that silly old man Sheldrake. He's not reporting real evidence he is writing what he know readers like you want to hear. As long as you pursue fringe claims you will appear ignorant and uninformed because their work is unsupported opinion, as such full of holes and easy to refute. You need to step your game up if you don't want to remain just another airhead fundie. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by psyche101

[psyche101]

11 hours ago, danydandan said:

Seems to be

Have you heard other atheists using the same description? 

[Only_]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Isn't that always the case when reality contradicts the believer's world view? The Big Bang, Evolution? Nonsense. God did it.

Funny how the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

24 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Funny how the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Its not funny at all, he was a professor of physics. He had to stand down biblical accounts to make way for evidence. That's inspiring if anything, like the Dalai Lama changing the Buddhist belief that the moon was litfrom within. Seeing people brave enough to challenge dogma with real evidence is a wonderful thing. Shame more can't take that lead and display practicality more often. He stated a ball rolling that gave us a whole new understanding of the universe. 

Edited April 5, 2018 by psyche101

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Funny how the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

Not as funny as Christians conveniently leaving out he was a scientist. You only want to tell half-truths that suit your narrative.

[Davros of Skaro]

@Clockwork_Spirit

You never answered my question:

"Now there's this guy I talk to sometimes. He loves, and believes in some whacky conspiracy theories. When I tell him a CT he's all ears, and wants to check it out. But when I rationalize, debunk, or suggest a link that deflates a CT he ignores, hand waves, and, or talks over me. Why does he do that?"

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, davros of skaro said:

@Clockwork_Spirit

You never answered my question:

"Now there's this guy I talk to sometimes. He loves, and believes in some whacky conspiracy theories. When I tell him a CT he's all ears, and wants to check it out. But when I rationalize, debunk, or suggest a link that deflates a CT he ignores, hand waves, and, or talks over me. Why does he do that?"

You know, since I learned about confirmation bias I've spend a long time trying to break out of it.  It's possible, and actually quite painful at times, but you can learn to recognise symptoms and force yourself to confront it in most situations.  A classic example for me recently was a thread on knuckle cracking.  I hate it, have a phobia of it in fact, and it took all I could to go into the thread and read that it wasn't actually a bad thing for people to do.  This goes against what I personally wish to believe, I don't want to read that it's fine, I want it to lead to a hideous painful death for everyone that does it...but I also know that's not rational and must be dealt with.  It was an uncomfortable read, it didn't arrive at the conclusion I wanted but I will accept it and will change myself accordingly.  

The truth often hurts.

[Davros of Skaro]

48 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

You know, since I learned about confirmation bias I've spend a long time trying to break out of it.  It's possible, and actually quite painful at times, but you can learn to recognise symptoms and force yourself to confront it in most situations.  A classic example for me recently was a thread on knuckle cracking.  I hate it, have a phobia of it in fact, and it took all I could to go into the thread and read that it wasn't actually a bad thing for people to do.  This goes against what I personally wish to believe, I don't want to read that it's fine, I want it to lead to a hideous painful death for everyone that does it...but I also know that's not rational and must be dealt with.  It was an uncomfortable read, it didn't arrive at the conclusion I wanted but I will accept it and will change myself accordingly.  

The truth often hurts.

I have arachnophobia. To ease the alarm factor of seeing a spider I made a form of a spider out of pipe cleaners, and put it on the wall where I normally sit. Over time it had a deadening effect to my reaction to seeing an actual spider. Not 100%, but enough to make the experience more bearable. 

It takes about 2 months for one to create new neurological pathways to form new thoughts/behaviors for repetition. 

[Piney]

1 hour ago, davros of skaro said:

I have arachnophobia. To ease the alarm factor of seeing a spider I made a form of a spider out of pipe cleaners, and put it on the wall where I normally sit. Over time it had a deadening effect to my reaction to seeing an actual spider. Not 100%, but enough to make the experience more bearable. 

It takes about 2 months for one to create new neurological pathways to form new thoughts/behaviors for repetition. 

Make one out of a wire cluster off a highline pole. It's a lot creepier. 

[Only_]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Its not funny at all, he was a professor of physics.

A professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. I just think that Ryleh shot himself in the foot, when pointing out the Big Bang Theory as an exemple that 'believers' have not done anything for the advancement of science.

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Podo]

11 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Funny how the Big Bang theory was first proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest.

A theist who was able to put his faith aside in exchange for reason. There are plenty of theists who can do that; facts and reason should always trump beliefs. Georges understood this.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Podo

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

A professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. I just think that Ryleh shot himself in the foot, when pointing out the Big Bang Theory as an exemple that 'believers' have not done anything for the advancement of science.

 

 

Now he didn't shoot himself in the foot at all, I think you did. 

Right there you compound the issue. Two paths. It wasn't religion or faith that was the path to realising the big bang. It stood to the side to make way for discovery,  Ryleh is 100% correct. 'Belief' did nothing here. Belief was sidelined for discovery.