You’re missing the point. The point is to show that when trying to bring a claim such as yours into the realms of science, each one is comparatively illogical.
Really? A lot of people believe they were abducted by aliens. They swear blind and say they absolutely experienced. Does that prove that aliens exist and visit us regularly? Hardly. A lot of people believe in all sorts of things that are clearly (and ludicrously) made up.
There’s that word again. “Believe”.
Believing you seen something gets you nowhere in science. This is the point to my whole argument. This isn’t a new thing, it’s not like people haven’t been claiming to witness paranormal activity for as long as anyone can remember, but for all those stories and all those people “believing” in seeing ghosts there is still not one shred of credible scientific evidence to back any of it up.
Regardless of age or whichever hallucinated states you were or weren’t in, there are still far more logical explanations to your experience than it being a literal ghost. This is another point I think you’re missing, I can’t say you absolutely didn’t see a ghost, I don’t have the evidence to do that. On the other side of that, though, you don’t have the evidence to say that you did. So all we’re really left with is what is the most logical explanation? Even you must agree that “it was definitely a ghost” isn’t that.
It’s not my intent to insult you so I apologise if I have. All I’m saying is that claims of something “paranormal” should be treated with the same scepticism as any other “out there” claim. My examples are extremely ridiculous, of course, but it’s more tongue in cheek rather than an attempt to insult or degrade so again, my bad for coming across that way.
Well I can use that word when talking of the existence of scientific evidence. You’ve used examples of lots of people “believing” they’ve seen a ghost as evidence of the afterlife. You’ve used examples of scientists believing the same. It would only be scientific evidence if there had been proper scientific tests and scrutiny carried out in order to prove or disprove the idea. So yes, when saying that there is zero scientific evidence of the afterlife or ghosts, I’m not wrong. If there were scientific evidence, you wouldn’t need to “believe” anything, it would already be proven.
Nonsense. My position is that there’s no point in “believing” in something unless it’s testable. Where does it end if that’s not the case? I don’t believe in the afterlife because I have no reason to. There’s no scientific evidence for it. It’s for those same reasons I don’t believe in numerology, astrology or someone being able to see my future by looking into a ball. If evidence becomes available then sure, I’m all ears, but it never does. It all, once again, boils down to “belief”.
I see it more as perhaps wanting to believe in something rather than trying to reach the most logical explanation. Hey, that doesn’t make you gullible or “thick”, it makes you human. That’s kind of my larger point, you’re a human being with emotions, all kinds of ways that your brain can trick you and all kinds of ways that your emotions can confirm that trick. That’s indeed been proven by science. It just makes you normal, I guess.
For the same reasons it matters to you that people believe your version of events. It’s not like this debate is a one way street.
You made the original argument that there was evidence of the afterlife. You used your experience as this evidence. It was you who brought this up. I can’t argue against it using an example of something you didn’t bring up, can I? I defend the idea of scepticism because I believe it’s a good life skill. Other than that, I couldn’t really care less if you believe in whatever you want. As I said, I’m pretty sure I’m not changing your mind here.
Something I can’t and won’t disagree with. This isn’t about me trying to take that away, I’m merely defending a position. I hope this does continue to bring you joy.