Reply #96: The problem is not with your use of the word "assert"

[Selwynn]

...but rather with your denial that an "assertive" claim is being made.


>> 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.


All of this needs no further response since it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.


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 responsibility to provide evidence to support those positive claims.


Actually, you are incorrect. Understand you claim that something IS true. You are claiming that It IS true that no afterlife exists. You are making an assertion that it is a matter of act that there IS no afterlife. And it is your burden to defend that assertion, by your own admission above.


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.


You are confusion sentence structure with rules of logical argumentation. In logic, whether you are saying "I assert A" or I "asset NOT A" you are still making what is called a "positive declaration" -- positive is the word that is confusing here. It doesn't mean only affirmation, never negation. It simply means an assertive declaration. In this case you are asserting the declaration that NOT A (where A is an afterlife).

This is still a statement that requires proof to be considered justified. Since no proof is possible, it is an unjustifiable assertion.

The only logically justifiable assertion is one that would say, "I have seen no positive evidence for the existence of an afterlife, therefore I see no compelling reason to believe that one exists. That is not to say that one might exist, but I have seen no evidence of it to date. Therefore I choose not to believe without evidence in the existence of an afterlife." Not that this is different than denying the possibility that one might actually exist.


I know that I have seen no evidence suggesting that such a thing exists, so why would 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?


It is not illogical to make a statement like the one I made in the paragraph immediately above. However, the moment you cross to saying "I deny the existence of an afterlife" as an objective assertion, you've left the realm of what is logically justifiable. Logic demands intellectual honesty. Intellectual honesty demands we acknowledge the reality that no evidence for is not the same as evidence against. We must accept the reality that "it is possible" - this is just a basic rule of logic. You can't prove a negative.

HOWEVER - it is perfectly reasonable to say "As a matter of personal course, I choose not to believe things for which I can see no evidence.


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.


I think no such thing, nor can anything I've said logically lead you to that conclusion. Only your assumptions about what I "must" be thinking because I disagree with you have lead you to that conclusion. In point of fact, I have no opinion whatsoever on the subject of an afterlife. Seeing no concrete evidence of its existence, I find no compelling reason for me to affirm that one certainly exists. At the same time lack of conclusive disproving evidence forces me - as all honest folk must do - to concede that its always possible that one does exist.

This is really actually not that complicated. The question is, is there any possible chance you are a big enough person to take correction or will you just make the entire discussion personal and combative?