>>6892474This is a good set of answers to be honest.
>>6892616I am a /pol/tard myself because I don't like the more insane parts of the radical left - but I don't believe in the conspiracy theories that unfortunately are often pushed on /pol/. I guess I'm a conservative, not as far to the right as some people on there.
>>6892658>Karl Popper... proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityOkay so maybe I should say the afterlife is "unscientific" rather than "pseudoscience" because people don't tend to claim the existence of the afterlife on a scientific basis.
But still, close enough.
>>6892740Economics is considered a social science and that's a rigorous field. And probably evidence-based too, I'm guessing.
>>6892751Pseudo-intellectual detected. Lmao.
>>6892760>>6892966Surely the lack of electrical activity in the brain after death disproves any notion of life continuing after death.
And if someone wants to claim "lol no actually what happens is your soul ascends into heaven" then surely the fact that we have never found any evidence of a "soul", despite our comprehensive knowledge of the human body, disproves the idea that a "soul" could exist after death.
>>6892832Give me a huge amount of credible evidence that it was faked, and that NASA is still lying to us, otherwise I'm not going to believe you champ.
