By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Sal.Paradise said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


Bolded: No, it was an example of how dangerous it can be to teach stories as facts. Now we have wars based on religious matter, for instance.

Underlined: Russell's teapot.

"Russell's teapot"? Really? Hilarious. 

Belief and understanding of the afterlife is not something based in facts or empirical evidence or, I accept this.

You however, place value in 'facts' i.e. empricial evidence, so the burden is on you to produce facts in this argument to support your belief. The fact is, both of our claims are unflasifiable, but you are the one that places value in empirical evidence, and you are the one that must therefore produce 'facts' for your own argument, by your very own claim, to be valid. 

But you cannot, so you defer to a rather ridiculous philosophical concept to make your lack of an argument seem acceptable. 


I said Russel's teapot since there are no evidence of a heaven, hell or God. It is up to believers to prove that they exist.

I based all my theories on unproven matter just to be able to comunicate with the believers. This whole thread is supposed to be a problem for those who believes in an afterlife.