Is there an afterlife, /int/?
One day you'll have a chance to learn for sure.
Yeah
No, but there is beforelife.
>>60400192
Who knows, who cares
>>60400192
Maybe, maybe not, depends what you believe ofc.
But i think there is something.
>>60400192
There's no evidence for one.
>>60400878
Well, there are no evidence against it either.
>>60400878
>>60400937
Can't give evidence for what you can't define.
>>60400937
Burden of proof lies with the affirmative claim.
>>60401028
No, neither of the positions have "proofs"
>>60401121
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
>>60401028
>>60401207
>>60401028
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.
>>60401121
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaFZQBb2srM
>>60401207
The position that there is no afterlife have the same amount of "proof", none. You have to die to know.
>>60401339
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
>>60401425
No, you are comparing apples and pears.
>>60400979
The only good post in this thread. A Brit, nonetheless, for fuck sake. Good work, guys
>>60401475
They're both fruits.
>>60401291
>you affirm there isn't one
I've made no such claim, merely that there is no evidence for one.
>>60401570
I'm Latvian.
>>60401696
Different ones
>>60400192
Doesn't matter, I'm not living much of a life at the moment anyway
>>60401810
Same class.
Now stop avoiding the question.
>>60401934
>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
>>60401934
I gave you an answer, are you blind?
"No, you are comparing apples and pears."
>>60402094
That's isn't an answer, you dumb arsehole.
>>60402135
It's the answer your getting, you dumb arab.
>>60402207
You're right, it was very dumb of me to ask questions to autistic idiot.
>>60401703
>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.
>>60402270
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.
>>60402282
>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.
>>60400192
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?
>>60402623
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
>>60402723
>Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to disprove the idea of there being an afterlife?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
>>60402623
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.
>>60403223
>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
>>60403450
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.
>>60404019
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
>>60404246
>I'm not saying there's an affirmative claim,
I'm not saying there's an afterlife*
>>60404246
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.
>>60404376
Not shifting the goalposts faggot
lrn 2 raed
>>60404421
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.
>>60404503
Whatever nigger, believe what you want
>>60404246
>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?
>>60400192
I believe so.
