this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
-50 points (17.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43902 readers
948 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No and anyone claiming they can is lying, mentally unwell or both.
Or they're attempting to leverage a person's grief for financial gain.
Which falls under 'lying' category.
I agree, but I figured I'd draw particular attention to this lie on the off chance that op was about to give a charlatan a sum of money in a misguided attempt to assuage some grief.
So which piece of technology or piece of science did you use to absolutely prove that there is no afterlife?
Which did you use to prove there is? What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
The problem is there is no way to prove there is or isn't an after life. My point is that he's acting like it's already been proven.
If I tell you I'm your god and you should give me all your money or you won't go to heaven, you will rightly call me a liar, even though you can't really prove that I'm not.
You won't say "oh I guess there's no way to prove he's not god, so I'd better give him my money".
In science, the default stance on something existing is that it doesn't, unless there's solid proof, or at least a compelling scientific theory suggesting that it does.
He is not explicitly saying there is no afterlife, just that there is no way to communicate with a potential afterlife.
Oh. Good point. Guess I misread that
It seems you are absolutely sure that dead people cannot hear or understand you, so sure that you think there can be no wiggle room.
But did you know that during the French revolution, severed heads of those executed hours ago were known to open their eyes and look at people who spoke their name?
There must be a lot of wiggle room inside your skull to believe that utter rubbish.
It’s not hard to believe. It’s not like the neurons connecting the ears to Wernicke’s area magically disappear. The part of the brain which processes one’s name is known to have evolved earlier and is more basely integrated. And there’s no rule that says neurons cannot fire even once after death. Indeed, bodies are known to move or twitch hours after death – so why not there brain, where most of the body’s neurons are?
Arguments for and against: www (dot) cureus (dot) com/articles/133225-the-most-gentle-of-lethal-methods-the-question-of-retained-consciousness-following-decapitation#!/
Decapitation experiments of Louis: www (dot) cairn-int (dot) info/article-E_RHS_612_0333--the-debate-over-severed-heads.htm
(this isn’t hours later but it’s the first source I can find rn)
Some organisms have detectable brain activity 96 hours after death (nobody has done this experiment on a human) www (dot) sciencealert (dot) com/how-long-does-a-human-head-actually-remain-conscious-after-being-cut-off
I’m not claiming 100% that consciousness can return even for an instant after death. I just think there’s enough question marks here that it can’t be entirely ruled out.
source: i made it the fuck up