Posted: Nov 17, 2010 12:57 pm
by Wuffy
Rubicon wrote:
Indeed, what-if's are the only thing darwin2 has given us after 8 pages of discussion. So far he has wrongly assumed that simply because consciousness might persist after death, that his claim is somehow a scientific statement worthy of scientific inquiry. Apparently he missed the part in science class where it is explained that science only deals with reality and not fantasies and wishful thinking. Science goes where the evidence leads it. Darwin2 has repeatedly admitted that he has none whatsoever.

His most profound failure is that he apparently thinks scientists erect blind assertions and then go looking for evidence to fit said assertion. This is utter FAIL. Scientists base their conclusions upon the available evidence, not the other way around. Darwin2 is assuming the conclusion ("consciousness may persist after death") and then suggests scientists should go looking for evidence for his fabrication. This is simply not how science works. So his persisting in claiming that his assertions are in any way scientific, are laughable at best, for the simple fact that he admittedly has no evidence whatsoever for said assertions.

Furthermore, even though he has been asked several times, he has failed to answer the question why his claim should be considered less absurd than claims about invisible pink unicorns, aliens in my backyard, purple fig leaves the size of Wales and orbiting teapots and should therefore be considered more worthy of scientific inquiry. He has not provided any arguments, only his personal opinion and a seemingly emotional attachment to his fantasy.

"What if" and utter failure to understand the scientific method is all we have so far.


While I disagree with his premise and idea's you do him a disservice by getting his question wrong.

What Darwin2 asked was if one were to be found in the afterlife, should we use the scientific method.
Now, if we do, well it would be interesting, but telling oneself to apply logic and critical thought should come naturally, now if a big magic man turns up and says. "Booga, you should have believed." Well I'll be sure to tell him to send down more evidence.

Now, to Darwin2... What in the world were you expecting when coming up with a hugely odd following and line of supposition then as us to be logical and rational about how we should be logical and rational after death. Even though these as all evidence points to the fact those are factors from our brains.

So, like everyone else has tried to tell you. Don't put the cart before the horse. Find evidence then build theory, it might be nice to think about what if I get to keep going after I die, but there is no such evidence.