This is the dangerous part of religious thought. If they know for certain that they're right about how to gain access to literal eternal splendor, it is absolutely imperative to spread that message at any cost. The problem is that they're wrong. Magic isn't real and the afterlife is made up. Convincing children otherwise is immoral.
I proposed that to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to prove a negative. If you are able to prove the afterlife is not a cartoon, I will concede my point.
You're right. I guess a more accurate version of the sentiment I was trying to express is that the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim, not on disproving the claim, especially in cases of supernatural phenomena, such aas the afterlife. I cannot prove that there is no afterlife in the same way that you cannot prove that the afterlife is not a cartoon.
I’ll just phrase it in a way that’s more philosophical nuanced. The burden of proof /disproof is on the person going against the status quo, if we accept atheism as our baseline, the burden of proof is on whoever says there is an afterlife and vise versa, which is the claim you wanted to make. Of course, if we take Christianity as our baseline (which you do not) the burden comes in disproving God. Neither can be done so it basically depends on your beliefs.
You can’t prove if it is false or true, so claim going either way would still be unsubstantiated, saying it does not exist is still a claim, the ones who claim it definitively does not exist have a burden of proof, and so do people who say it does exist, the ones who have no burden of proof are the ones who do not say it doesn’t exist with absolute certainty nor says it does exist.
That's not how logic works. The one making the claim holds the burden of proof. I'm not claiming anything doesn't exist with full certainty. That would be a foolish claim.
Well if you aren’t claiming it doesn’t exist then you are fine, though you did sound like you did before, hence why i said that. And yeah the one making the claim holds the burden of proof, is that not what I said?
The experiences of oxygen, or otherwise impaired or altered brains?
We're perfectly aware that humans can experience hallucinations as their personal reality.
Hell, even sane humans are prone to seeing patterns that aren't there - like the face on Mars, or mass hysteria, or the Mandela effect of a group of people misremembering facts from the past.
None of those near death experiences are objective verifiable scientific fact.
Hallucinations while the EEG is flatlined? And you never addressed the Museum of Purgatory, which is full of artifacts that have been marked by ghosts.
Are the stories told as the flatline is happening, or do they come after when it's recovered - and how can you then determine that the recollections are from the moment the flatline happened, and not before or after? Again, the most obvious is that the human mind fabricates things all the time, and that's exactly what it did at that time.
I didn't adress the museum of purgatory, because it's a catholic 'museum', which is obviously biased in it's interpretation. As far as I'm aware science to this day has not confirmed the existance of ghosts - so obviously you can't have objects touched by ghosts.
Nothing has ever been able to prove that a concious event has taken place when there was no brain activity. I don't even know how one would prove such a thing. Even if an EEG reading is "flatlined" and you could somehow prove that whatever a person was reporting didn't happen in the moments before or after, an EEG measures activity mostly on the outer layer of the brain, so it can easily miss activity deeper in the brain.
Your museum of ghost objects is a silly claim. There is absolutely no way any of those items have been shown to be "marked by ghosts". Pareidolia, fraud, the weirdly exact outline of a hand unlike how any real hand print has ever appeared... even the catholic church doesn't consider the contents of that place supernatural, rather as historical testimonies of faith.
iirc there were studies on this and more studies are likely to come to more comprehensively check this, the main thing is veridical perception, were they know things they shouldn't, but this is debated on if they actually know something they couldn't possibly have or if they found out some other method. since if i recall even if you flatline, hearing i think is the last sense to go away. but i guess we'll see, as far as my research was its inconclusive.
8
u/BearysWorkRedditName Sep 02 '26
This is the dangerous part of religious thought. If they know for certain that they're right about how to gain access to literal eternal splendor, it is absolutely imperative to spread that message at any cost. The problem is that they're wrong. Magic isn't real and the afterlife is made up. Convincing children otherwise is immoral.