As William S. Said "death is an unexplored world" He meant that nobody came to say how it was.
Christians say "there is life after death" and atheists say that there is not and that Christians need to prove it. Why dont atheists prove that there is not life after death? They say negative cant be proven.
Does science has evidence to confirm or negate that there is life after? No. Does Christians? No. The only difference is that Christians belive, atheists dont. So why should it be more logic than not that there is not life after death?
For example if I say "I believe that there are some panets with life up there." And an atheists say "not there is not, prove it, I dont gonna prove mine answer because negative cant be proven" Why should then be considered that the claim from that atheist used more reasoning than I did?
If you cant see something, neither do I, and think that even thought we can see it, I believe there is something, why do you think you are the sane one?
2007-12-31 01:42:04 · 21 answers · asked by geeks_gadgets 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If denying doe snot need responsability, why are people arrested in Europe for denying the holocaust?
2007-12-31 01:49:33 · update #1
i don't know, i'm still trying to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist then i'll move on to unicorns, leprechauns, God, The Easter bunny...
Unless people bring proof for what they state.
2007-12-31 01:58:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because the burden of proof always lies with the person making the affirmative statement? What a ridiculous world this would be if it was considered logical for me to say "There's an invisible pink and purple unicorn on your shoulder. Prove there's NOT!"
No one knows, but since there's no evidence supportin the idea that humans miraculously survive their own death, the logical status quo will be that we don't.
The burden always lies with the one making the affirmative statement. Non-belief is the standard. If I tell you there's a man-eating frog in the lake, the burden of proof does not fall to you to DISprove its existence.
Sorry, it's called "sanity".
2008-01-02 19:44:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. it is definitely extremely hard to stereotype a set of folk with purely one shared loss of a theory. there will be a great form of commonality between all denominations of Christians, much extra so for each denomination. A Catholic could have particular issues in elementary with extraordinarily much any yet another Catholic, even distant places ones, a Baptist could have particular issues in elementary with extraordinarily much any yet another Baptist, and so on. subsequently a stereotype is born. the only element that atheist relatively agree on is the shortcoming of a god.
2016-10-10 17:24:51 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An afterlife implies the existence of something that exists in each individual other than this body. You cannot prove the existence of such a thing. More importantly, you seem to think your delusions are equal to rational beliefs. I'm sorry, but they're not. Period.
Your example is a different one altogether. You assume, using a degree of logic, that because life exists on this planet, life can exist in the same fashion on another planet. A soul, as you religious call it, is a completely different issue.
"If denying doe snot need responsability, why are people arrested in Europe for denying the holocaust?"
Wtf? Get off the computer, get your parents to teach you something about logic, then come back when you're half-ready. Seriously, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
2007-12-31 01:54:45 · answer #4 · answered by Keyring 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
So... following your logic.
If I was to create a theory, any theory..
say, "that grass is seen as pink to dogs eyesight"
.. and say I was then to gather followers who supported my claim
.. then the people who don't believe that dogs see grass as pink are taking the easy way out because they cannot prove me wrong.
That's what you're saying, isn't it ? That's a little ridiculous.
2007-12-31 01:52:53 · answer #5 · answered by X~xQuestions&&Answersx~X 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we (Atheist) do take the more logical way.
Why do most of us say there is no life after death...Well to me it's proven that there isn't...When you die you no longer function...You have no brainwaves, heartbeat, or respitory circulation...Which is the definition of life ending or death...
Life after death is an oxymoron...I mean realisticly if you die you cease to exist...so how are you living after death.
2007-12-31 01:52:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wait, did you just equate denying something with no proof one way or the other to the Holocaust!?!
Just wanted to be sure. I think you know that's a non-sequiter and a TERRIBLE comparison.
2007-12-31 01:52:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the Dec 26 survivors have their own version of the after life
this is currently their life after the death of their loved ones of the Tsunami in Indonesia
2007-12-31 01:50:46 · answer #8 · answered by voice_of_reason 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody has brought proof that there is.
Nobody has brought proof that there isn't.
So it's stupid for people to try to convince others of either position.
2007-12-31 01:49:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The "blind" way.
2007-12-31 01:45:32 · answer #10 · answered by Halfadan 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋