Actually you are avoiding the argument all together
I'm sorry, but I'm not.
You've taken this debate about a simple "conviction of a spiritual realm," somehow, to whether or not a spiritual realm exists.
Because that's very much on point, because false beliefs cannot bring the same peace that true ones bring. Therefore determining what is true and what is false, while not relevant to your argument, is very much relevant to my rebuttal of your argument.
No one knows what happens to you after you die.
So you say, but it seems pretty obvious to me. Firstly there
is no "you" after you die, so how can anything happen to you? Furthermore we've often observed the physical transformations that happen to the body after death.
The brain is the organ of thought, of identity. And we know its function ceases at death. If it didn't then we'd build trapdoors into coffins out of the expectation that people would be coming back from the dead. If there's life after death then why is no one alive after death? The cemetaries are filled with the proof of my position - no one "comes back", therefore its most reasonable to conclude that life ends at death, just as the definition of death would have us believe.
A spiritual reality that transcends a physical reality would give you a much different answer.
You still haven't told me what a "spritual realm" would be, or what observations you feel are best or only explained by the existence of one.
Personally, I think the chance of there being a spiritual reality is more likely than life coming about by accident. Do the math.
You've apparently already done it. Why don't you show your work? What is the probability of the existence of the spritual realm?
What if a spiritual realm was presented to you everyday? Would you believe then, or just deny it because it's beyond what science is capable of understanding.
If I saw it everyday, if we all did, why would it be beyond the capacity of science? Moreover if it
didn't exist why would that be a fact that science could not uncover as well?
There may, or may not be, more to this universe than the present conclusions of atheists.
So then present the evidence that there is. I await it eagerly.
Incorrect.
So, then, it's your position that English words do not have meanings?
Maybe in the crashfrog's reality.
So, facts are not facts? I'm not sure on what basis we'll be able to discuss if you're not even willing to grant that
facts exist.
But here in actual reality, we don't know whether or not there's an afterlife after you die.
You keep saying that, but it's pretty obvious to me that there's more than sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion about that; I've detailed to you what that evidence is. It includes the logical impossibility of life beyond the cessation of life, the asymmetry of life after death but no life before life, the fact that no credible reports of life after death exist, the fact that the "spiritual realm" of which you speak has no apparent definition and is apparently a meaningless lexical construct, and the lack of any other credible evidence to suggest its existence.
Despite what you may have heard, under empiricism, absence of evidence
is evidence of absence, especially for something you assert happens to every human (for we all die.)
The debate was, and always has been, "A person (in general) who believes in life after death has more inner peace than a person who believes (much like yourself) that there is no life after death." That's the bottom line, and you have not even come close to refuting it.
But I have refuted it. I've spoken directly to your argument, which is predicated on the assumption that all beliefs, both true ones and false ones, are capable of equal amounts of peace - or even that false beliefs are more peaceful than true ones.
This is obviously false on the face of it. So the question becomes, if false beliefs cannot offer the peace of true ones, then who is correct? The believer or the non-believer?
All avaliable evidence shows that the non-believer is correct; thus, it is he (or she) who must have the greater peace.
It is
my argument, a direct rebuttal of yours, that you have yet to grapple with. Instead you've called me names, like a playground child, and asserted that the critical evidentiary support of my position is somehow "irrelevant" to
your argument.
I'm through with, "crashfrog says there's no life after death, therefore there is no life after death."
You mean you're through offering that as a cartoonish strawman of my position? It's about time. I've never offered
my belief as support of my position (as I would add,
you have, on several occasions.)
I've given you the objective evidence that would lead any reasonable person to the same
objective conclusion that I have reached. As yet you've been unable to rebut any of that evidence, instead offering only playground insult and invective - clear evidence that you're completely unable to find legitimate fault with my argument.
And whether or not it is the best thing, it is my right to use some emotion and passion in my debates. You can't take that away from me.
Then allow me to draw your attention to the forum guidelines which you agreed to follow during your registration at this site:
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.
I find your approach neither detatched nor coolly academic, nor that you've treated me with the respect commensurate to the forum rules. Lastly you've consistently failed to address my position, rather misrepresented it and employed ludicrous personal charges of arrogance to conceal your impotence in the face of my arguments.
™ Version 4.2