There Can Be No Evidence If There's Nothing There

IT WASN'T WHO you probably suspect it was but someone didn't like me pointing out that what evidence there is on the question, it is that there is life after death.   

You don't have to believe that evidence, whether it is in the form of reports of near death experience,  veridical accounts of details in near death experiences unknowable to the one who had the experience, claims of communication with the dead by mediums - some of those, also giving veridical details almost certainly unknown to the medium*- or one of the most ubiquitious of reported human experiences,  seeing ghosts, but all of that is evidence.   What is entirely unevidenced is the claim that there is nothing after brain death because everything about our minds is a product of brain chemistry.   There is no possibility of that producing evidence.

In taking the last few days off because I've got another damned cold I thought about what I said that got a materialist, atheist of the would-be scientistic variety all annoyed,  it occured to me that the theologian I respect highly,  Hans Kung, dismissing the early reports of near death experience in his book-length study of the topic, translated into English as "Eternal Life?" it didn't surprise me that a 20th century academic theologian would choose to not deal with that evidence in what was, no doubt, an academic study - as always with Kung, the footnotes are an opus in themselves.    But, if I had had the chance to ask him,  I would point out what I pointed out above and ask why, since he deals at book-length with the non-evidence based argument that there is nothing after death, he would not at least acknowledge that complete lack of evidence while admitting that those reports of near death experiences and everything else listed above, including reports of seeing ghosts,  is, in fact, the only evidence there is to make any kind of evidenced, empirical case on the subject.  

If there is evidence that there is no life after death, what does that consist of?   Reports of near death non-experience?   Of no information being given about real life given in non-readings?   Of no ghosts seen?  

If you claim to base your beliefs on evidence, well, you can't base a disbelief in an afterlife on evidence because there quite plainly can be no such evidence.  

As for anyone thinking I'm nuts for what I wrote,  I left jr. high a long, long time ago.   I'm entirely unbothered by name calling.  I have no academic career to worry about, no one is going to be voting on me getting tenure or advancement.   I certainly don't care about it being declared that I've got cooties. 

* Some of that information comes from clients who concealed their identity, name, etc. from the medium before their session to prevent any access to information.   Again, you don't have to believe such clients as you don't know but when you know the person who had the reading and know they wouldn't want to take a chance on someone googling them to get information, that's evidence as credible as, in fact, the large majority of evidence which relies on such known credibility.