You can't fully know the unexistence of an afterlife because you can't fully prove a negative without considering the entirety of the universe across all time, which is physically impossible for us to do. You can't fully know the existence of the afterlife because there isn't any evidence for its existence. It doesn't make sense to hold them up as equally valid/invalid stances on that basis.
I also think that considering the idea of an afterlife and determining that there isn't one due to lack of evidence requires accepting the possibility of an afterlife on a level. It's not something that exclusively arises from the same type of dogmatism that leads someone to believe in an afterlife without evidence. Were evidence to arise, the situation would shift and those denying the existence of the afterlife would be the dogmatists.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.
|