updated dust test vid++Would have called me crazy 2 days ago. But seeing is believing

[dunkel]

Non-religious people? In danger? Like communists?

I don't understand this statement. What, exactly, are you getting at?

 

[strider12]

You made the claim, now prove it.

biker messed up the quotes.

What I actually said was that we will be dead and without consciousness. This is born out by all the available evidence. There doesn't appear to be any difference in the death processes between Christians and non-Christians. And, of course, as far as we can tell scientifically, nothing survives the death process. When there is no brain activity, our consciousness is gone as far as we can tell.

Further evidence of this, of course, is when there is brain damage, we have a very clear picture illustrating this concept...one part of the brain is damaged, we see this deficit. Another part, and we see that deficit. Everything we can actually see and measure, then, points towards the idea that when the brain is completely "damaged", as in death, then we see complete deficits, in other words, complete destruction of the consciousness.

If you want to make a competing claim, that something happens to our consciousness after death, something that survives the death of the brain, then it is on you to back that claim up.[/QUOTE]

If you are saying the body will be without consciousness I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[dunkel]

Yep, according to some. Pearls and swine at this point, and a shame. Started out as a cool thread until it got troll infested.

Troll infested? You mean, people that disagree with you responded?

 

[dunkel]

biker messed up the quotes.

What I actually said was that we will be dead and without consciousness. This is born out by all the available evidence. There doesn't appear to be any difference in the death processes between Christians and non-Christians. And, of course, as far as we can tell scientifically, nothing survives the death process. When there is no brain activity, our consciousness is gone as far as we can tell.

Further evidence of this, of course, is when there is brain damage, we have a very clear picture illustrating this concept...one part of the brain is damaged, we see this deficit. Another part, and we see that deficit. Everything we can actually see and measure, then, points towards the idea that when the brain is completely "damaged", as in death, then we see complete deficits, in other words, complete destruction of the consciousness.

If you want to make a competing claim, that something happens to our consciousness after death, something that survives the death of the brain, then it is on you to back that claim up.

If you are saying the body will be without consciousness I agree wholeheartedly.

What I am saying is that as far as we can tell scientifically, the consciousness is obliterated upon death. There is no evidence that says otherwise, of which I am aware. So yes, I made a claim, and science and the available evidence backs that claim up.

What I'm saying to you now, is that if you want to make another claim, that the consciousness somehow survives the death of the brain, then it is your duty to present evidence to back that claim up.

 

[strider12]

What I am saying is that as far as we can tell scientifically, the consciousness is obliterated upon death. There is no evidence that says otherwise, of which I am aware. So yes, I made a claim, and science and the available evidence backs that claim up.

What I'm saying to you now, is that if you want to make another claim, that the consciousness somehow survives the death of the brain, then it is your duty to present evidence to back that claim up.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I can prove such a thing. I have no faith in books that are thousands of years old that have been copied over and over again. I have beliefs that I don't care if anybody else believes and to force them down people's throats, to me, is the height is arrogance.

What I will stand by is Tesla's quote: as soon as science starts to study the non-physical more advancements will be made in ten years than all of time combined.

 

[dunkel]

I'm not arrogant enough to think I can prove such a thing.

But you have no problems demanding that I prove my statement?

I have no faith in books that are thousands of years old that have been copied over and over again. I have beliefs that I don't care if anybody else believes and to force them down people's throats, to me, is the height is arrogance.

Well, I can certainly agree with that first sentence.

What I will stand by is Tesla's quote: as soon as science starts to study the non-physical more advancements will be made in ten years than all of time combined.

If and when that day comes, I may reevaluate my beliefs.

 

[strider12]

But you have no problems demanding that I prove my statement?



Well, I can certainly agree with that first sentence.



If and when that day comes, I may reevaluate my beliefs.

Well yeah. If you are going to make claims back them up. Whereas I have made no claims that need proof.

 

[Laufen]

We're doomed.

 

[dunkel]

Well yeah. If you are going to make claims back them up. Whereas I have made no claims that need proof.

As I said, science and the available evidence back up my claims.

You mean to say that you made no public claims, I suppose. Or did you truly mean that you have no need to back up anything that you believe? That's an interesting position to take, but you are welcome to do it, I suppose.

 

[dunkel]

Well, this has gone on for 12 pages, and the actual explanation was given some time ago. Is there truly any need to continue?