The rational minded and intelligent do. But not one cares about your imagination on the topic.
The difference is the evidence provided to support a scientific theory. Scientific evidence and proof is what establishes "truth." Not your empty declarations of "truth" based on nothing but wishful thinking and feelings, which i
Again, you don't have a good understanding of the word.
Understatement right there.
Dying is inevitable. That is objectively demonstrated and true. Life after death is not. That is just a silly religious concept to help irrational people cope with the reality of our impending demise. Your attempts to make an appeal to emotion or empty declaration what you BELIEVE is true will not work on me.
Nope, rational minded and intelligent people don't need it. Uninformed people merely fall back on what they believe science has "told" them is true, because they're too unintelligent to come to such conclusions on their own.
Nope, scientific evidence and proof have no authority on what's actually true.
I've provided more than enough evidence, and will continue to do so.
No soul.
Wrong.
www.technologyreview.com
I've already illustrated how it isn't a religious concept, and you're misinformed on the definition of "religion", and merely using it to refer to anything you don't like.
www.merriam-webster.com
www.cnet.com
No, denying the fact of the afterlife is a means by which irrational people attempt to cope with the reality of being judged for their actions in the next life.
If a person was rational, they would accept the evidence of the afterlife as valid, and consider how they live here on earth, and how it might affect them in lives to come.
Rational people do not need to believe anything, especially emotionally comforting concepts. All thats needed is objective evidence. But you once again demonstrate your dont understand what constitutes valid evidence or the scrutiny behind it. Its just more repetitive BS assertions on your part. Nothing of any real substance.
Hmmm. You talk a lot about "proof".
You can choose to ignore it if you like, but science exists whether you believe it or not.
'Nuff said, right?
That's been debunked:
www.psychologytoday.com
Still your own fiction. Not established scientific fact. Try harder because you're real bad at this.Wrong.
Life after death is proven fact, as my sources have demonstrated.
And dying is not inevitable. For example:
The transhumanists who want to live forever
For a core of longevity true believers, the time to intervene is now.
I've already illustrated how it isn't a religious concept, and you're misinformed on the definition of "religion", and merely using it to refer to anything you don't like.
But I'll do so again.
Definition of RELIGION
a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance… See the full definition
The idea of an afterlife has nothing to do with religion:
Scientist: Quantum physics can prove there's an afterlife
Professor Robert Lanza is sure there's something beyond this mortal coil. He believes the science is there to prove it.
No, denying the fact of the afterlife is a means by which irrational people attempt to cope with the reality of being judged for their actions in the next life.
If a person was rational, they would accept the evidence of the afterlife as valid, and consider how they live here on earth, and how it might affect them in lives to come.
But some are just content falling back on nonsensical standards of evidence, which they know they don't even consistently use themselves, as a security blanket. Or what people, "science", yada yada have "told" them is or isn't true, rather than what actually is.
The onus of proof is on the one making the positive claim. No proof of a soul. Just empty assertions of it.That's been debunked:
Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
Rational people don't need to fall back the emotionally comforting concept which tells them they won't have to be judged for their actions on earth in the afterlife.
The evidence I've presented is valid. And I've already demonstrated that subjective evidence is superior to objective evidence (in addition to having provided plenty of the objective kind).
The proof has been provided.
You merely failed to provide or cite it!
No one cares about what's established scientific fact.
Yawn. Do you even read the links?
www.psychologytoday.com
Still no proof or evidence to establish veracity of "truth." Your BS doesn't cut it. Scientific fact is far superior to your worthless emotionalaistic theistic drivel!
Appealing to emotion is a perfectly valid way of making an argument. I've already demonstrated that:
No, in reality.
Funny how the scientific community has never asserted or affirmed a soul exists. No doubt someone would win a Nobel Prize if they did.Yawn. Do you even read the links?
Does the Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’
How do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.
No it's decidedly inferior.
Appealing to emotion is a perfectly valid way of making an argument. I've already demonstrated that:
Modes of persuasion - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
No, in reality.
More detachment from reality.