If you truly and honestly do percieve it like that then you have been greviously missinterpritting my points, and have been missing the context of them. You seem to percieve them in an over simplified manor, and also miss some of the other reasons I gave. Also, you seem to have missed the difference between Inductive and Deductive reasoning. Do not pretend I am arguing this in a way I am not
P1: There is nothing waiting for them after death whatsoever. Even when Ajimu generated an sort of place beyond death of her own, it was completely material and at best was a dream. There is no reincarnation. There is no "shedding of the mortal flesh." There is nothing along those lines. The only kind of soul that could even possibly exist at this point are Burning Open Casket Heresy Style Souls ala Dante's Inferno, which is a hyper specific kind of soul and raises the implications that souls don't play any necessary roll even if they did exist, especially in combo with the other points
P2: Nope. You are using our definition of resurrection, which considers making it like someone never died counts. Medaka Box says that this is not resurrection, and setting someone to a state before they died is not the same as giving life to the dead. Its the same as what SCP 2718 says about the ability of the council to restore a dead being to life. Of the 19 ways that the foundation can bring someone to life, none of them are really resurrecting them, they only have one real way to truly resurrect them in the way they view it. In addition, Medaka Box intentionally distinguishes from a series like Dragon Ball, not mocks in this context. Essentially, as I said above, There is no basis to bring someone back once they truly pass
P3: Maybe I was not as clear as i should have been about this one. The mind and "you" being purely biological, means that the whole Theseus ship paradox thing points to there being no other part of you. Aside from it being another point towards Medaka Box rejecting the spiritual or metaphysical in general, of course. If I have a soul, and you over write my mind so I have a completely different personality and mentally, then I am still me but with a different mentality. If I have no soul, and you over write my mind so I have a completely different personality and mentally, then I am no longer me. I probably just got too complicated with that, so I can rephrase and simplify if what I am saying is unclear
Now that I think about it, Iihiko's type 6 basically functions on the whole concept of Theseus Ship, or probably more acurately, the paradox of the swamp man
" Like, you're taking three things in group A, showing that the series rejects the existence of those three things, and concluding the series has nothing in group A. Isn't this a flawed argument? "
"It's like saying "John's house no cats, it had no mice, and has no goldfish and John mocks people who have goldfish. Therefore John can't have any pets."
It just doesn't seem like a sound argument. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your evidence."
You seem to have completely missunderstood how I am arguing. I am not arguing deductively, which is what would give you a 100% for sure answer. I am arguing inductively, to push that the probability of it past the point where you can simply dismiss it for, as I said before, the sake of it not being outright 100% guide book and author approved beyond the shadow of any doubt.
An argument does not need to have a 100% chance of being true to be reasonably sound.
If you want, I can write it out in as close to Symbolic Logic as I can, since that seems to be how you like it reduced to