I think we have a different understanding of truth in this case. I'm just going with empirical evidence, that's it. And there is none for all of these subjects.
The problem about most of these phenomena is the ethics and procedure to which a scientist would have to perform in order to get said empirical evidence.
-- say ghosts are indeed real for example. How would a scientist be able to study a ghost? They definitely wouldn't willingly just jump into a test tube in some laboratory considering from what I've gathered most ghost experiences seem to suggest that they are not be bound to a physical state anyways.
--say NDE's are real How would one get around the ethics of killing hundreds of test subjects (albeit temporarily) to scientifically study and document their experiences? Furthermore, if it is indeed real, what would make NDE's undeniably disguishable from explainable hallucinations?
--say reincarnation is real. How would one be able to truly prove it's existence unless they themselves experienced memories of their past lives?
I have a question though: since we all evolved from some primitive species millions of years ago, and we're all connected to some way or another... do animals also have an afterlife? I mean, we're nothing else than very developed and evolved apes. What makes us different from others? If we have an afterlife, does a dog have one? Do fish have one? What about insects? What about microscopic organisms? I mean, we're all beings. We all started from the same point. What makes us different? And why? Just because we have better cognitive and intellectual abilities? If you think about the world, how it functions and why we're even here in the first place: do you think there is room for an afterlife?
This is assuming the afterlife (if it exists) is something that we can even truly comprehend as living beings. There are mulitudes of possible definitions for an afterlife so I like to think of it as a multiverse that depends on your consciousness or beliefs at the time of death. This would hypothetically explain why NDE's all seem to be dependent on the persons belief system. Continuing with this train of thought, upon death a person (or animal) would possibly create their own new reality depending on what they believe ... atheist may end up in eternal nothingness because thats what they believed would happen. ... christians would go to heaven (hopefully lol)... spiritualists may become non-corporeal beings ... a dog might be smart enough to enjoy things like bolting around its old owners house but dumb enough not to know its dead so it haunts their house aimlessly for eternity. Who knows maybe we aren't even individuals anymore and all life returns so some sort of collective source in the after life.
It is as bad as they're saying though. The Antarctic will be gone in a matter of years.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ctic-ice-far-greater-than-thought-study-finds
And every few months we find out: "
Opps, it's even worse than thought." I've been following scientific reports for quite a while now and I never fail to get surprised. I mean there is a reason it's considered the largest threat to humanity. Although, I'll be gone soon - not that it matters to me personally.
I dont really want to get into the whole climate change debate lol. That's a topic for another day (or life rather). Alls I know is its very hypocritical of them to act like genuine super eco-activists while in the meantime using their fame and aquired wealth to live far beyond their means. I think both of them have multiple houses for example.