Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 06:37 AM)xear Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 03:16 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  Oh my the idea of languishing pointlessly forever sounds so much better then living enjoying life no matter how brief and having it matter because it's all there is . Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth .The echoes of a life well lived or at the very least attempted resounding behind me.yup our option sounds so great Dodgy

You seem firm in your belief. I may join you in that belief as soon as you explain to me how non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life.

We're not talking about "nothing" here which is a possible condition of Being.

No one has ever experienced non-existence from a first hand perspective and no one ever can. So to say you will go into it at death is fantasy.

And since nothing can emerge from non-existence please explain why all life has not already dissolved into it, since it has to be a one way trip if you are really talking about non-existence.

.

Your conscious mind was non-existent prior to your existence as it is reliant upon your functioning brain.
Your conscious mind will be non-existent once you are dead as it is reliant upon your functioning brain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
22-09-2016, 09:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 09:36 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:"That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up."

Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.

No, wrong again.

Consciousness is a byproduct of the chemical reactions in your body, mostly in the brain.

This is not fantasy, it is supported by science.

wkik

The idea of a soul and/or afterlife is only backed by imagination and fear.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
22-09-2016, 09:55 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 09:51 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 09:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.

No, wrong again.

Consciousness is a byproduct of the chemical reactions in your body, mostly in the brain.

This is not fantasy, it is supported by science.

wkik

The idea of a soul and/or afterlife is only backed by imagination and fear.

That is one of the best wikipedia pages I've seen. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-09-2016, 10:37 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 09:36 AM)xear Wrote:  "Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death."

Well then what does Ordo mean by: "Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth ." ?

OS is not saying that there will be first-hand experience of non-existence.

Quote:"That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up." Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.

It is backed by every shred of evidence we have of what is required for consciousness. The only fantasy we have here is your claims of continued existence after death.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-09-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 10:37 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 09:36 AM)xear Wrote:  "Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death."

Well then what does Ordo mean by: "Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth ." ?

OS is not saying that there will be first-hand experience of non-existence.

Quote:"That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up." Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.


It is backed by every shred of evidence we have of what is required for consciousness. The only fantasy we have here is your claims of continued existence after death.

The question remains: How does non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life?

We're not talking about "nothing" here which is a possible condition of Being.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2016, 12:33 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 12:24 PM)xear Wrote:  The question remains: How does non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life?

What's that got to do with consciousness?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-09-2016, 12:58 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 12:24 PM)xear Wrote:  The question remains: How does non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life?

Chemistry.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
22-09-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 12:24 PM)xear Wrote:  The question remains: How does non-existence ( a non-condition which has no properties) produces life?

We're not talking about "nothing" here which is a possible condition of Being.

Assuming you are still using 'existence' when you mean 'consciousness' or 'life' or something along this lines (your terminology is misleading at best)...

We aren't saying that consciousness is produced by non-existence, we're saying that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain. As the brain develops it begins to produce the effect that we label consciousness.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-09-2016, 03:37 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(22-09-2016 09:36 AM)xear Wrote:  
(22-09-2016 08:57 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Back with the strawman arguments, eh? Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death.


We've been over this repeatedly. Individual consciousness comes into existence during the development of the organism just like a wall comes into existence when the parts are assembled. That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up.

"Nobody has claimed that the individual will experience non-existence after death."

Well then what does Ordo mean by: "Then calmly slipping into a eternal state of unbeing no different then before my birth ." ?

"That consciousness ceases to exist when the individual dies just like the wall ceases to exist when it is broken up." Yes, that is your unprovable fantasy, nothing more. Backed by experience? No. Backed by a fertile imagination.

Sigh by Angrons Nails i was being poetic. I'm not litterly saying your going anywhere or off to an experience. That was me trying to express how death feels. Considering i have border line experienced it myself. As i have in fact been at the edge of death and that's what i experienced it feels it's not a metaphysical claim.

Next unbeing in my word for expressing the shutting down of my biological systems i could just say that but i lacks elegance

Lastly slipping is me expressing how dying feels it feels like going to sleep or slipping into unconsciousness only difference is your likely not going to wake up

Hope that sorts out this weird controversy upBlink

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
27-09-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
To try to answer three people in one post:

I think one of my problems here is I am not sure how certain words are defined by others.

Someone said life comes from chemistry. As soon as someone mixes some chemicals together and produces a life form, that at least would discredit biocentrism. That has not happened. Why not? Not enough time?

"We aren't saying that consciousness is produced by non-existence, we're saying that consciousness is the product of a functioning brain. As the brain develops it begins to produce the effect that we label consciousness."

Fine, but I am asking a different question. Where did life come from? Some say there was a quantum flutter and that caused one thing, then the next, and eventually there was life. But what caused the quantum flutter? The fact is you are alive and I am alive. One possible explanation is that life always was. That would be the simplest explanation, occam's razor.

If we are talking about life having come from "nothing" we have to be clear what we mean by nothing. Are we talking about a non-being nothing, or a being nothing? A being nothing is an experience I myself have had and so have many others. Here is a short description from erowid:
I discovered, to my horror, that reality is a cold, dark, lonely void. I no longer feared dying because 'dying' doesn't exist, only the void exists, and I was now trapped in that void. This was worse than dying. I realized that the one overwhelming emotion that God feels is loneliness. I also believed/feared that I could never return to the world I had known. The void had swallowed me and would never let me go.
https://erowid.org/experiences/exp.php?ID=28211

You can find many such first hand experiences both from near death experiencers, buddhists, and psychedelic experiencers.

So yes absolute nothing does exist but it's not the end of existence [your being].

Here is Buddha's description of Nirvana:
“There is, monks, that state where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of the infinity of nothingness, no base consisting of the infinity of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.” (Udana, p. 108)

“There is, monks, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-formed. If, monks, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-formed, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, formed. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-formed, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, formed. (Udana, p. 109)

“Monks, this supreme state of sublime peace has been discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact. Monks, that is the supreme state of sublime peace discovered by the Tathagata, that is, liberation through not clinging, by understanding as they actually are the origination, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of the six bases of contact.”

Some people say Buddhism is atheistic. I'm fine with that definition of it, but it is not nihilistic.



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: