Do you think that this philosophical argument proves life after death?

> An afterlife would make no sense in our universe anyway.
Can you elaborate why it doesn't make any sense? It doesn't seem so far fetched to me to be absolutely honest. And of course I'm not sure if my idea of "after life" is the same as yours.

This is the problem with many people, they base their worldview based on only what they themselves experience, instead of seeing the larger picture of what everyone experiences.
Most people who come close to death do not have NDEs, like your example of your grandfather. However, when this cohort of people come close to death again, they can have an NDE just like they could the first time - it is random whether someone has an NDE or not.
But, and this is the crucial point, when have an NDE they actually change their mind.
Good for your grandfather for changing his life for the better, though.
>All those stories of seeing the afterlife or post-death visions are just those who experienced hallucinations while dying.
So 100% of the population does not understand "it must have been a hallucination bro!"-argument? What do you understand that they don't?
>Just because enough people see something and say they saw the same thing doesn't make it real.
So, as per the thought experiment as the link in the OP introduces, what people report to exist in the room is not there?
>People who trip on drugs can see the same thing but we don't take those as credible.
Actually, many people do. Many people who do DMT for instance take it very seriously.
>Therefore, any kind of experience that has no evidence to back it up coupled with being something borderline paranormal, can easily be ignored.
Again, so what people report to exist in the room is not there because you find it extraordinary?

Attached: 1533564674329.jpg (1365x2048, 212.95K)

It doesn't matter whether the room exists or what is inside the room exists, there is no real evidence to back up said claim. If a group of people take the same drug and see 50 martians running around that doesn't mean the Martians exist in reality. You misconstrued my arguments.

Also this thinking means that humans expierence reality the same which can't be said in any definite means.

You did not understand the argument to begin with, though. Ask yourself this, what if everyone in the whole world had an NDE and concluded that it was real, for what reason would you think it was rational to not believe them, and think that your skepticism would not encounter the same fate as everyone else' if you were to have an NDE yourself?

Attached: 1488209956765.jpg (1024x1018, 85.73K)

Yes but science still works. And what is reported in the room is still there. So that we have slightly different experiences of reality does not mean that we can not know about it through the experience of others.

Attached: cherrywind_by_kawiku-d6l4c5m.png (815x700, 610.58K)

>Before their NDEs, the percentage of people who believed in life after death ranged from 22 to 38 percent, depending on the study. After their NDEs, 76 to 100 percent of these same people believe in life after death
For starters, this is weak. If there was a non-selective afterlife that everyone goes to, and all these people in the studies had NDE, a mere ~50% increase in the number of believers is pretty shit. I'm going to assume the 100% figure is a lot more skewed than the 76% one.
Then the article goes on to make fallacies, there are two quotes from NDEers that are pure bullshit much like how druggies describe their experiences. That's where I ran out of interest, this is clearly a stupid article written by and for stupid people.

There might well be an afterlife, but being able to go there and come back and retain your memories of your time there is genuine nonsense unless you accept that this world we live in is a simulation and our bodies here are fake, while our real bodies are outside the simulation and that's the place we visit after death or during an NDE. The author of this article clearly doesn't understand anything about how the human brain works and she's just fine believing a magical explanation, that you can die, enter a relatively "supernatural" plane, and bring back your experiences into your natural brain. Again this is only reasonably possible if we assume that this world is a computer simulation. But personally I think these people are just peddling bullshit. I'm sure there's a big chance I'd become a proponent of this kind of dumb afterlife if I had a fancy NDE hallucination myself, evidently it's very convincing, but that doesn't make it not dumb.

If my skepticism encoutered the same fate as everyone else' if I were to have an NDE myself, then I would start believing it. It wouldn't make it anymore real however. Just because I believed it, or all the skepticals in the world believed or literally every single person in the world believed it, it still would not mean it exists. People aren't as rational as they think they are. Ask yourself this, what if everyone in the whole world was invited to those Ugandan Live Miracle shows where they do some dumb tricks and say they've just shown miracles, and everyone starts believing them, would you start believing them too? Maybe you would desu, but I don't think that's the rational decision. Back then, people all believed that the Aether existed, and it did not make it more real.
If I one day start believing on life after death after a NDE, it's okay. We're all only superficially rational.

>Actually, many people do. Many people who do DMT for instance take it very seriously.

Unironically makes it all even less credible.

>Again, so what people report to exist in the room is not there because you find it extraordinary?

Yes. I generally don't believe people, specially those who report extraordinary findings, since they're usually wrong and retarded.

>I'm going to assume the 100% figure is a lot more skewed than the 76% one.
A clearly ideologically motivated assumption, that is also false.
>Then the article goes on to make fallacies
What are those fallacies?
>there are two quotes from NDEers that are pure bullshit much like how druggies describe their experiences. That's where I ran out of interest, this is clearly a stupid article written by and for stupid people.
So what exaxtly would you think a description of an afterlife would sound like if not vastly more vivid, beautiful, logical, rational, and self-evidently real?
>There might well be an afterlife, but being able to go there and come back and retain your memories of your time there is genuine nonsense unless you accept that this world we live in is a simulation and our bodies here are fake, while our real bodies are outside the simulation and that's the place we visit after death or during an NDE.
That is exactly what is claimed, actually.
>But personally I think these people are just peddling bullshit. I'm sure there's a big chance I'd become a proponent of this kind of dumb afterlife if I had a fancy NDE hallucination myself, evidently it's very convincing, but that doesn't make it not dumb.
So your argument boils down to "NDEs and/or the afterlife is bullshit and dumb because that's what I think and how I feel."
K, but needless to say those are not counter-arguments but more on the level of "Nuh-uh", and I doubt you will convince many others with those reasons.

Attached: 1615120187322.jpg (225x225, 7.39K)

>A clearly ideologically motivated assumption, that is also false.
Yeah because the person selling an ideology as well as a book definitely cannot have ulterior motives. In any case, I can see that you are dumb and will not waste any time or effort trying to convince you, but for a parting gift, I'd like you to think about how an average human being is capable of devising, in a short time no less, that the environment they are in is "more logical", "more rational" and "more real" than the real world. If you cannot figure out where the problem with this is, then just give up on trying to figure out reality and join a religion.