₦airaland Forum

Blakjewelry:
somebody should please answer this. Where were you before you were born?

In a void where the only thing you sees is black

obinna58:
In a void where the only thing you sees is black

Your assertion is still wrong wrong. When you die you cease to exist. Even the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastics said for when man dies the breath goes back to God who gave it. In other words you are nothing more than energy.

Jeromejnr:
Bros, you are not smart jare.

Stop tryna console yourself. I am sure you have seen the errors of your statement.

I know that even though I never claimed your last statement, you try to force that straw man tactic on me.

Lol..you are empty bro.

P.S For your extra education, there is no biology in fire. So yes, Chemistry is divorced from Biology in that aspect.

Conclusion: Your analogy is unintelligent.

I know you're more intelligent than this, and your problem currently is actually grasping analogy. You seem to be lacking in its usage.

I know it would hurt your ego, but can you please go back and immerse yourself in the understanding of analogy?

Not for this moment, but for another time when you want to counter an intelligent comment. It would save you the embarrassment.

Thank you!

GodWrites:
I know you're more intelligent than this, and your problem currently is actually grasping analogy. You seem to be lacking in its usage.

I know it would hurt your ego, but can you please go back and immerse yourself in the understanding of analogy?

Not for this moment, but for another time when you want to counter an intelligent comment. It would save you the embarrassment.

Thank you!

Lol..I have explained what an analogy is somewhere up there.

Please educate yourself.

Except you want me to also expose the fallacy of your own intellect.

Jeromejnr:
Lol..I have explained what an analogy is somewhere up there.

Please educate yourself.

Except you want me to also expose the fallacy of your own intellect.

There is a difference between scrapping through google, and actually seating down to understand a concept. Based on this response, I would recommend home schooling.

When I die, I'll take my place among my ancestors in the great beyond!

GodWrites:
There is a difference between scrapping through google, and actually seating down to understand a concept. Based on this response, I would recommend home schooling.

Home schooling for yourself abi.

Now google is your enemy because it doesn't favor you.

You have not even said anything. Neither have you countered my argument with any backing data.

All you have been doing is spewing sentiments and emotions. You are just like many of those 5g propandandist.

Empty.

Jeromejnr:
Home schooling for yourself abi.

Now google is your enemy because it doesn't favor you.

You have not even said anything. Neither have you countered my argument with any backing data.

All you have been doing is spewing sentiments and emotions. You are just like many of those 5g propandandist.

Empty.

The hasty conclusion is absurd.

My comment on Google is merely to make known that sometimes, you need to understand the workings of a concept and usage, not just the surface definition.

In your definition, you mentioned partial similarity.

Now the question is: where is the partial similarity between fire and human as regards to reaction?

Fire is the abrupt oxidation of an element in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, emitting heat, light, and several reaction products.

The human body follows a similar route in keeping the organism alive. During cellular metabolism, the molecule glucose combines with oxygen reacts to create carbon dioxide and water, as well as ATP, which is a form of energy that the body can use for its functions.

Now, if all of a sudden something disrupts these reaction processes, the element, or organism cease to exist.

When the chemical reaction stops, the fire will become non-existent, the same thing that happens to the human body when it breaths its last. Do you get the similarities now?

To the ultimate question? What happens when we die? Pretty simple! You cease to exist. You delve into a state of oblivion, nothingness, just as you were before you were born.

If you believe that dogs and sheep have no place in the afterlife, what makes you think you're special?

I just calmed down to school you, cause I know the education system of Nigeria is in shambles.

GodWrites:
The hasty conclusion is absurd.

My comment on Google is merely to make known that sometimes, you need to understand the workings of a concept and usage, not just the surface definition.

In your definition, you mentioned partial similarity.

Now the question is: where is the partial similarity between fire and human as regards to reaction?

Fire is the abrupt oxidation of an element in the exothermic chemical process of combustion, emitting heat, light, and several reaction products.

The human body follows a similar route in keeping the organism alive. During cellular metabolism, the molecule glucose combines with oxygen reacts to create carbon dioxide and water, as well as ATP, which is a form of energy that the body can use for its functions.

Now, if all of a sudden something disrupts these reaction processes, the element, or organism cease to exist.

When the chemical reaction stops, the fire will become non-existent, the same thing that happens to the human body when it breaths its last. Do you get the similarities now?

To the ultimate question? What happens when we die? Pretty simple! You cease to exist. You delve into a state of oblivion, nothingness, just as you were before you were born.

If you believe that dogs and sheep have no place in the afterlife, what makes you think you're special?

I just calmed down to school you, cause I know the education system of Nigeria is in shambles.

Okay, time to school a supposed intellectual.

I like this.

I see you used Google a lot. Thats good.

Also you assumed that I schooled in Nigeria. (This is also to counter your claim on hasty and absurd conclusion).

Now to your education.

First of all, you can never use an analogy (especially for two distinct matter) in a science conference or journal. We use gathered tested data. Not fairy tale examples.

Secondly, your second claim in the human body following the same route of abrupt oxidation as fire is absurd and a science faux pas.

Why?

1. You cant always tell when a human ceases to exist. Examples would be the difference between clinical death and brain death. In clinical death, chemical processes like you mentioned above ceases including heart beat and blood flow. But many have been resuscitated, and studies have shown that awareness and consciousness continues even during clinical death.

2. Not all human death comes from cessation of chemical processes in the body. An example will be a bullet to the brain which can cause instant death with no time for circulatory disruption to occur.

3. Using ionized gas which is not a living thing for an analogy that has to do with biological death and decay of living things is one of the most uneducated things anyone has said on this forum.

Biological death is far more complex than the cessation of a chemical reaction such as fire. So it is foolish to use fire as an analogy. Your silly argument is not new. Educate yourself on the below.

"According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:
1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
Fire is not alive. It does not contain genetically inheritable information, and arguably does not have a complex organization."

Since your fire does not pass the test above, please stop spreading pseudoscience.

Thank you.

Blakjewelry:
Your assertion is still wrong wrong. When you die you cease to exist. Even the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastics said for when man dies the breath goes back to God who gave it. In other words you are nothing more than energy.

As a living being it's what I remembered before I was born, it follows the existence of mind, if it's possible to exist at first what makes you think you can not re exist more often times or haven't existed many times before, I mean a countless number of times as a living thing.

Jeromejnr:
[s]Okay, time to school a supposed intellectual.

I like this.

I see you used Google a lot. Thats good.

Also you assumed that I schooled in Nigeria. (This is also to counter your claim on hasty and absurd conclusion).

Now to your education.

First of all, you can never use an analogy (especially for two distinct matter) in a science conference or journal. We use gathered tested data. Not fairy tale examples.

Secondly, your second claim in the human body following the same route of abrupt oxidation as fire is absurd and a science faux pas.

Why?

1. You cant always tell when a human ceases to exist. Examples would be the difference between clinical death and brain death. In clinical death, chemical processes like you mentioned above ceases including heart beat and blood flow. But many have been resuscitated, and studies have shown that awareness and consciousness continues even during clinical death.

2. Not all human death comes from cessation of chemical processes in the body. An example will be a bullet to the brain which can cause instant death with no time for circulatory disruption to occur.

3. Using ionized gas which is not a living thing for an analogy that has to do with biological death and decay of living things is one of the most uneducated things anyone has said on this forum.

Biological death is far more complex than the cessation of a chemical reaction such as a fire. So it is foolish to use fire as an analogy. Your silly argument is not new. Educate yourself on the below.

"According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:
1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
Fire is not alive. It does not contain genetically inheritable information, and arguably does not have a complex organization."

Since your fire does not pass the test above, please stop spreading pseudoscience.

Thank you.[/s]

You have spun utterly off the wheel. Shows your comprehension capacity is weak. An average Nigeria will label it, "Off Point"

I identified a similarity between the two causes. That doesn't imply that death in humans has to ALWAYS happen when there is a disruption.

Lemme make it more clear for a kindergarten to understand.

Both cease to exist the moment what causes them to exist halts.

Perhaps I should use a simple factor like Oxygen since both can't exist without it. At least now, your brain doesn't have to spin so much.

When there is a lack in this element, both would extinguish, die, give up, stop existing, whether clinical or otherwise. Do you agree?

Now that is the partial similarity you seek.

Does it fit the argument concerning what happens after death? Absolutely!

What happens to fire when it goes off? It ceases to exist, the same thing that happens to humans when declared dead.

The link between the two is so evident. But your ego is still fighting to prove your wrong right. It's repulsive to be dogmatic bro.

Do you still want to keep dragging this?

GodWrites:
[/i]

You have spun utterly off the wheel. Shows your comprehension capacity is weak. An average Nigeria will label it, "Off Point"

I identified a similarity between the two causes. That doesn't imply that death in humans has to ALWAYS happen when there is a disruption.

Lemme make it more clear for a kindergarten to understand.

Both cease to exist the moment what causes them to exist halts.

Perhaps I should use a simple factor like Oxygen since both can't exist without it. At least now, your brain doesn't have to spin so much.

When there is a lack in this element, both would extinguish, die, give up, stop existing, whether clinical or otherwise. Do you agree?

Now that is the partial similarity you seek.

Does it fit the argument concerning what happens after death? Absolutely!

What happens to fire when it goes off? It ceases to exist, the same thing that happens to humans when declared dead.

The link between the two is so evident. But your ego is still fighting to prove your wrong right. It's repulsive to be dogmatic bro.

Do you still want to keep dragging this?

I thought believers of your school of thought were scientific in their discourse.

The question OP asked what happens when you die.

You spurned off into a baseless analogy that does not make sense and has not been proven.

We know based on studies what happens when fire goes out. But even science stops when it goes to what happens after humans die.

So Mr Man, what data do you have to prove that once humans die, that is the end? where is your fact sheet?

You cant be in front of scientists and you are asked that question, then you start spitting analogies of fire in correlation with the human experience.

This is why, Mr. Kindergaten school teacher, I said the analogy does not make sense.

Just show us your fact sheet Mr intellectual.

A very good expose..

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/282496/jewish/How-Jews-Approach-Death.htm


This makes a lot of sense, exactly what the igbos believe too.

Jeromejnr:
I thought believers of your school of thought were scientific in their discourse.

The question OP asked what happens when you die.

You spurned off into a baseless analogy that does not make sense and has not been proven.

We know based on studies what happens when fire goes out. But even science stops when it goes to what happens after humans die.

So Mr Man, what data do you have to prove that once humans die, that is the end? where is your fact sheet?

You cant be in front of scientists and you are asked that question, then you start spitting analogies of fire in correlation with the human experience.

This is why, Mr. Kindergaten school teacher, I said the analogy does not make sense.

Just show us your fact sheet Mr intellectual.

Now you're talking like the believer I expect to discuss with, not a confused 'wanna be' scientist.

Do I have proof of what happens after death? NO!

Does that mean I should invent fairytales to suit my ego and live in delusion? That would be lame, don't you agree?

You can't prove what happens after death either, and your stance of an afterlife is born by a book written by cave men in the middle east.

Since you can't prove that the afterlife exist, then it doesn't exist until proven. Going by that, we can say the dead goes into a state of oblivion, nothingness.

We can further buttress this thrilling journey by taking a walk down memory lane.

Do you remember anything when you were 1 year old? What about before you were born?

Now, that should give you a peek of what death looks like, oblivion! Your sense of awareness and consciousness goes off like a light bulb in a dark room.

obinna58:
As a living being it's what I remembered before I was born, it follows the existence of mind, if it's possible to exist at first what makes you think you can not re exist more often times or haven't existed many times before, I mean a countless number of times as a living thing.

What proof do you have that you existed before other than the fact that you were just a DNA copy

If you still exist after you die,it means you never died.

GodWrites:
Now you're talking like the believer I expect to discuss with, not a confused 'wanna be' scientist.

Do I have proof of what happens after death? NO!

Does that mean I should invent fairytales to suit my ego and live in delusion? That would be lame, don't you agree?

You can't prove what happens after death either, and your stance of an afterlife is born by a book written by cave men in the middle east.

Since you can't prove that the afterlife exist, then it doesn't exist until proven. Going by that, we can say the dead goes into a state of oblivion, nothingness.

We can further buttress this thrilling journey by taking a walk down memory lane.

Do you remember anything when you were 1 year old? What about before you were born?

Now, that should give you a peek of what death looks like, oblivion! Your sense of awareness and consciousness goes off like a light bulb in a dark room.

So you dont have prove and you have jumped to conclusion on what happens after death?

Btw, I see you guys using this example of what happened before you were born blabla. How does that in anyway justify your position on the afterlife?

An afterlife is called an After-life. This means life had to begin and end somewhere. So if life had a starting point, how would you be able to speak of a pre existent state?

Thirdly consciousness has baffled scientists for ages, but yet you speak of it as if you have studied it in a test tube. A medical doctor who went on air to speak of his conscious state during brain death (I can give you the link) spoke of an afterlife.

Now how can you confidently fault someone like that when we dont have the tools capable of measuring this concept called consciousness. If he came and spoke to you of his experience, as far as you dont have data on a counter claim, you are In no condition to speak on the matter as if you are an expert.

You use theories and opinions and debate them as facts.

That is not an argument.

Prove it to us bro. Let's see your test tube results.

That book you speak on and abuse, has been right on things such as history, deep space, archeological findings, primordial times before man e.t.c. Yet you speak as if you are smarter than it.

You have been wrong in most of your arguments the bible has been right in many of it claims. And you want us to take your opinion over the bible.

Once again. Show us your test tube results. Afterall you ask us to show you God.

Faithful4real:
I have been wondering where will athesist go when they die. Some religon have their place of rest after life. I dont expect bad one among them to enjoy rest for their bad deeds. OP you can move it to the front page please.

It doesn't matter what any one has told you, nobody knows what happens after death.

Your pastor is not sure of heaven. Mohammed was not sure of Al janah. Even those who believe in reincarnation are not sure.

So stick to what you do know and stop making stupid threads.

Jeromejnr:
So you dont have prove and you have jumped to conclusion on what happens after death?

Btw, I see you guys using this example of what happened before you were born blabla. How does that in anyway justify your position on the afterlife?

An afterlife is called an After-life. This means life had to begin and end somewhere. So if life had a starting point, how would you be able to speak of a pre existent state?

Thirdly consciousness has baffled scientists for ages, but yet you speak of it as if you have studied it in a test tube. A medical doctor who went on air to speak of his conscious state during brain death (I can give you the link) spoke of an afterlife.

Now how can you confidently fault someone like that when we dont have the tools capable of measuring this concept called consciousness. If he came and spoke to you of his experience, as far as you dont have data on a counter claim, you are In no condition to speak on the matter as if you are an expert.

You use theories and opinions and debate them as facts.

That is not an argument.

Prove it to us bro. Let's see your test tube results.

That book you speak on and abuse, has been right on things such as history, deep space, archeological findings, primordial times before man e.t.c. Yet you speak as if you are smarter than it.

You have been wrong in most of your arguments the bible has been right in many of it claims. And you want us to take your opinion over the bible.

Once again. Show us your test tube results. Afterall you ask us to show you God.

First of all, the burden of proof lies on you who claims there is an afterlife. Prove to me that an afterlife exists, then I would have no choice but to believe.. I'm very open-minded, not dogmatic.

But so far, the only proof you and your lot has is an old aged book and some deluded fellows who had an OBE.

There is no doubt that the human brain and consciousness is a mystery, but that doesn't prove an afterlife bro.

Give me empirical evidence of the existence of an afterlife.

Waiting.

GodWrites:
First of all, the burden of proof lies on you who claims there is an afterlife. Prove to me that an afterlife exists, then I would have no choice but to believe.. I'm very open-minded, not dogmatic.

But so far, the only proof you and your lot has is an old aged book and some deluded fellows who had an OBE.

There is no doubt that the human brain and consciousness is a mystery, but that doesn't prove an afterlife bro.

Give me empirical evidence of the existence of an afterlife.

Waiting.

The burden of proof, the burden of proof. You guys never know how "burden of proof" works.

The burden of proof is not on me sailor. This whole topic was for Atheists. I never claimed anything on what I believe on the afterlife. I only criticized your claims.

The burden of proof is on you. Answer the question postulated to you by the OP.

Btw, I know its because you cant answer the question you decided to play a reverse uno card. Lol.

The topic wasnt addressed to me. I would have answered you.

So give us your empirical evidence of your claims. I want to learn. Enlighten me. Share your knowledge with us. We await you.

Myer:
It doesn't matter what any one has told you, nobody knows what happens after death.

Your pastor is not sure of heaven. Mohammed was not sure of Al janah. Even those who believe in reincarnation are not sure.

So stick to what you do know and stop making stupid threads.

Watin concern you?

Some of you are using the big bang Theory . But i have a question for use the hot gases who created them. Don't get me wrong if you have watched this series called the Big Bang Theory
In the series there was a scientist called Sheldon. Now the created another series when sheldon was younger he was an atheist he still went church in the movie because he's mother was a Christian and Sheldon was very smart. He choose to be an atheist. He said something to his mother whenever they discovered something new their is always a creator. So now i have a second question for you Who is that creator. The person who acted as Sheldon was a physicist.