Still dodging. I'm asking you to back up your claim, that's all. I know what the opposition is claiming. That's not what we're talking about here.
If you can't, say so.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Faith in permanent death
- Thread starter 839311
- Start date
Still dodging. I'm asking you to back up your claim, that's all. I know what the opposition is claiming. That's not what we're talking about here.
If you can't, say so.
Oh, I don't mind one way or the other if you want to assert there's no afterlife. I just like to see people use the terms properly. There's a reason the burden of proof lies with the positive statment: the normative statement isn't provable, unless it's made positive or a positive statement is made about it.
I can't then. Not to your satisfaction, anyway.
Not to the satisfaction of the unspoken rules of honest debate either.
But the normative statement also doesn't imply the positive statement.
You say there should be an afterlife; I say I should be a millionaire. I'm not a millionaire, though.
I guess I just don't see how your tangent is relevant to the discussion.
Really? Because in all honesty, I just don't see it.
Blindfolds for everybody.
Edit: Seems pretty clear to me: Willamena is just saying the same thing I've been trying to say: if you're going to make a definite statement, be prepared to back it up with something more substantial than "well prove it isn't".
If' we're going to recognize that as a legitimate tactic, anybody can get away with anything:
How's this:
"I'm King tut, prove that I'm not. If you can't then I am by default".
"2036523098560975406 light years from earth there's a planet made of milk duds inhabited my flying Smurfs. My proof? Well, prove that it isn't. You can't? Well then, I rest my case".
OK, at least now I see the appeal to this approach.
Last edited:
Let me elaborate further: I just don't see how this could be considered an equal-sides issue.
Up to and until there is some sort of significant evidence of the existence of some afterlife, the simplest, most logical and reasonable attitude is to assume that there is none.
By other road, one should recognize that life is a complex process that, from available evidence, depends on physical existence. I'm not sure where the idea of an afterlife came from in the first place, but by its own nature it is a positive assertion and one can (and IMO should) freely doubt it.
I have no idea why one would take any other stance, really.
Come to think of it, the example of Russell's teapot is relevant here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Up to and until there is some sort of significant evidence of the existence of some afterlife, the simplest, most logical and reasonable attitude is to assume that there is none.
By other road, one should recognize that life is a complex process that, from available evidence, depends on physical existence. I'm not sure where the idea of an afterlife came from in the first place, but by its own nature it is a positive assertion and one can (and IMO should) freely doubt it.
I have no idea why one would take any other stance, really.
Come to think of it, the example of Russell's teapot is relevant here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Last edited:
Okay... I'll bite: how is Willamena's point relevant to the discussion?Blindfolds for everybody.
See the edit.
It takes some rather exotic definitions of "life" for such a logic to apply here.
Then again, "afterlife" is such a vague, speculative concept that I guess anyone can reach any conclusion one wants about it in the first place.
Unfortunately, by that point we end up in a situation of dispute of different aesthetical perceptions that all want to present themselves as some sort of objective truth. Better to just avoid the whole exercise.
Last edited:
I didn't get that from Willamena's post at all, but okay.
Or... "people keep on living after they die, and when they do, they inhabit an invisible, undetectable realm, and even though it and the people who live there are invisible and undetectable to us, I still know about it somehow"?
Edit - that milk-dud smurf planet: we have no evidence for or against it. Is it reasonable to presume that it doesn't exist?
If yes, then how is this different from presuming that an afterlife doesn't exist?
Edit 2: I say that there's no difference, and that it's reasonable to discount the possibility of both the milk dud planet and the invisible realm of dead-but-not-dead people on the same basis.
Last edited:
Who said it was?
"Assume" and "establish" aren't synonyms.
"Doubt" isn't an antonym for "establish" either.
It absolutely is, but in this case you're the one holding it.
I beg your pardon? I am not the one proposing the existence of something that leaves no trace to be spoken of.
No, I don't think so.
Saying "there is no afterlife" is like saying "there is no teapot". Both are reasonable conclusions when presented with a claim that not only has no evidence to support it, but seems as if it was contrived to avoid being refuted by any possible evidence.
Such logic? We're not even talking about life/afterlife now. We're talking about honest appraisal and presentation of one's stance. Or at least I am, you seem to be refusing to.
And if anyone claims any of these conclusions to have been established, it's on them to show the evidence, not the other guy.
Who is?
When did you see me say I believe in an after life anywhere over the course of this thread (or any other thread).
Of course that's not implied --I'm just clarifying what a positive statement is.
It's a pedantic, grammar-nazi tangent, that's its relevance.
Yes, that would fall into the same category, glad someone is following what I'm saying.
No, it isn't. That was my point.
Who's saying it is?
Uh huh, and if you say "It's reasonable to dismiss the existence of a Milkdud/smurf planet for purely logical reasons" you'd have a point. But, if you say "It's been established literally billions of times that no such planet exists" you'd still need to explain how someone went about establishing this.