Reply #92: Oh Brother!

[arwalden]

>> This is simply not a truth of english language. <<

If you go here you'll see that my definition was correct.

>> Unfortunately for you, <<

Unfortunately for me? :eyes: The only thing that's "unfortunate" is your lack of understanding of what it means to make a positive statement.

>> in english language someone denying the existence of an afterlife is saying "there is no afterlife." Period. <<

Uhh. Oka-a-ay.

>> It is a postive declaration of which any reasonable person is justified in demaning an explanation, i.e proof. <<

That is not correct. The person who claims that something IS true is the one who is making the "positive" statement. The person who claims that something DOES exist is the one who is making the "positive" statement. --- It is always that person's responsiblity to provide evidence to support those positive claims.

The person who argues that something does NOT exist is the one who is making the "negative" statement. He hasn't asserted anything, he's simply saying that in the absence of any supportive evidence, the claims made by others simply aren't true.

>> That is why agnosticism is the only purely logically justifiable position. <<

That statement itself is illogical. What you're suggesting is that because something can't be disproved, then that is somehow to be interpreted as "evidence" that the positive claim may indeed be true. That is a falacy!

>> I don't know if there is or is not an afterlife, and neither do you, <<

I know that I have seen no evidence suggesting that such a thing exists, so why whould I have any belief that it does? In the absence of any evidence that supports these claims, why is it "illogical" for me to continue to disbelieve?

>> and in fact there is no actual way to know one way or the other with any degree of certainty, becuase it is outside the realm of things for which we can make ratioanl affirmations or have empirical evidence. <<

And that's the thing... it's up to those folks who claim that it's true to produce evidence ("one way") but it's never up to the the folks who deny the claims ("the other").

Simply because "the other" cannot be disproved, you seem to think that this itself is quasi-proof of the existence of an afterlife. That's just a clever attempt to try and shift the burden of proof.

(edit: clarity, deleted an orphaned sentence fragment)