[Dimensio]

But we all know absence of evidence is not proof of anything.

Right. I also have no evidence that invisible space pixies don't have a plan that will make me rich. However, because no evidence has surfaced that such things exist, I try not to waste my time worrying about them.

You asserted no one will be meeting up with Darwin (in the after life) so the burden of proof is on you.

Wrong, but this isn't surprising from you. The assertion was made that people will be meeting up with Darwin sometime in the future. I was stating the negation of that assertion, and I based that negation on several known facts.

And it is fallacious logic to claim the absence of life after death is a fact - it is merely your belief.

You're just trying to make an argument, asserting that any position -- no matter what it is -- is "faith-based" because it cannot be proven to 100% certainty. Your method of "reasoning" would have us assuming absolutely anything, because one person's assumption is no better than another. I don't think that you actually live your life that way, however, because I suspect that you only present this point of view in order to troll for replies.

Mind you, I can't prove that about you. It's just an observation based upon evidence. Don't assume that I'm stating it as a fact.

[Last Visible Dog]

Right. I also have no evidence that invisible space pixies don't have a plan that will make me rich. However, because no evidence has surfaced that such things exist, I try not to waste my time worrying about them.

Actually you ruined your example. The fact you are not rich is active proof against the "pixie theory". Now the Pot Head Pixies from the Planet Gong are a known fact (if you understand this reference than you too are a ball of fun at parties)

Wrong, but this isn't surprising from you. The assertion was made that people will be meeting up with Darwin sometime in the future. I was stating the negation of that assertion, and I based that negation on several known facts.

What "facts" are you basing your claim of no after life? (HINT: there are no "facts" on that subject"). If you would have asked those claiming that there is an afterlife for supporting evidence you would have retained the high ground but you got carried away and made an absolute statement that demands supporting evidence (your fingers were typing checks your science can't cash). Your statement requires evidence no matter what you were responding to (this is Aristotelian logic, I did not make it up).

You're just trying to make an argument, asserting that any position -- no matter what it is -- is "faith-based" because it cannot be proven to 100% certainty.

No. In the complete absence of supporting evidence - holding a position is merely a belief (I did not invent the rules of logic).

HINT: How can there be a way to prove or disprove the afterlife in this life. That is like claiming water is not wet by claiming the fact that you are not wet now proves water is not wet despite the fact you are currently not in the water.

Your method of "reasoning" would have us assuming absolutely anything, because one person's assumption is no better than another.

My method of reasoning is Aristotelian logic, if you don't like it - take it up with Aristote. In our existence we only have levels of certainty. Some positions have more certainty than other. There zero certainty that there is no life after death.

I don't think that you actually live your life that way, however, because I suspect that you only present this point of view in order to troll for replies.

If you don't live your life based on logic and reason you live your life based on delusion (be it science or religious). Science delusion is arrogance assumptions of unfounded certainty.

Opening your eyes is not always a pleasant experience.