Is there an afterlife, Sup Forums?

Is there an afterlife, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
youtube.com/watch?v=zaFZQBb2srM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

One day you'll have a chance to learn for sure.

Yeah

No, but there is beforelife.

Who knows, who cares

Maybe, maybe not, depends what you believe ofc.

But i think there is something.

There's no evidence for one.

Well, there are no evidence against it either.

Can't give evidence for what you can't define.

Burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim.

No, neither of the positions have "proofs"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I deny that there isn't an afterlife, you affirm there isn't one.

Such linguistic pedantry should not exist in a discussion like this.

youtube.com/watch?v=zaFZQBb2srM

The position that there is no afterlife have the same amount of "proof", none. You have to die to know.

If I tell you there is an invisible and etherial penis in your mouth, would you consider it as a probability?

Yes after life is real

No, you are comparing apples and pears.

The only good post in this thread. A Brit, nonetheless, for fuck sake. Good work, guys

They're both fruits.

>you affirm there isn't one
I've made no such claim, merely that there is no evidence for one.

I'm Latvian.

Different ones

Doesn't matter, I'm not living much of a life at the moment anyway

Same class.
Now stop avoiding the question.

>ethereal penis
Given that it's ethereal, it has no tangible effect upon my life and it doesn't matter if I consider that possibility

That said, I can take it on faith that I am sucking massive amounts of cock if I so choose

I gave you an answer, are you blind?

"No, you are comparing apples and pears."

That's isn't an answer, you dumb arsehole.

It's the answer your getting, you dumb arab.

You're right, it was very dumb of me to ask questions to autistic idiot.

>Burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim.
I merely rephrased the argument in an equivalent way that defeats this premise of yours.

Nothing to see here I guess.

You really think you will get more of an answer when you ask such a stupid one? If someone is autistic then it's you.

>I merely rephrased the argument in an equivalent way that defeats this premise of yours.
No, you didn't. You changed the entire meaning of my statement. I said there's no evidence of A. You tried to make it sound like I said A doesn't exist. Those are different statements with different meanings.

Why would you fucking think that? Have you or any other human that didn't have an agenda of creating a religion and making himself into a God EVER have the slightest bit of evidence of there being an afterlife? Well, what do you think is the more plausible answer therefore, yes, if you blow white people up in a terrorist attack you'll get to heaven, or no, you're just a random product of cell multiplication?

Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to disprove the idea of there being an afterlife?

It's not about evidence, it's about what makes you feel better. Some people prefer to believe that their soul never dies, some people prefer to think that this isn't just a test

>Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to disprove the idea of there being an afterlife?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

It's a valid inquiry - you recognize yourself as a living being, you see that other living beings die, you wonder if their 1st person experiences live on or not.

>An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[2][3] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition.[4]
Criticizing someone for believing in an afterlife shifts the burden of proof to the critic

Saying "there is an afterlife" is the affirmative claim. Saying "there is no evidence for an afterlife" doesn't shift burden of proof, saying "there is no afterlife" does.

I'm not saying there's an affirmative claim, I'm saying that it's improper to demand evidence of something that cannot be confirmed

Saying it's irrational to believe in an afterlife because there's no evidence for it is a moot point because it's not about evidence

>I'm not saying there's an affirmative claim,
I'm not saying there's an afterlife*

Man, look at those goalposts fly.

So because you couldn't pull off shifting the burden of proof you start saying no proof is needed because it cannot be confirmed.

Not shifting the goalposts faggot

lrn 2 raed

Then why were you asking him for proof that an afterlife does not exist? Seems you suddenly retreated to "we don't need no proofs" when you couldn't make that stick.

Whatever nigger, believe what you want

>it's improper to demand evidence of something that cannot be confirmed
Then I can conjure up all kinds of things that you can't disprove. There's a whale on the moon that telepathically commands me to shit in your bushes. Who are you to say otherwise?

I believe so.