I do believe that this is the only life we have and that death is the end of our existence. The faith in an afterlife is based upon wishful thinking and it's posited by those who refuse to accept the inevitable tragedy that is life.

Ideas don't just spring up from things that we can actually sense. There are innumerable things that humans have imagined but have never sensed. The idea of the eternal is conceived by humans due to their discontent with the temporality of life and time. The idea of an eternal existence that is free of suffering is indeed sparked by our sense of suffering in a temporal world. I, however, choose to accept this world with a warm embrace.

your belief in death as the end of existence is just as valid as those who believe in some sort of afterlife and requires just as much faith.
Remember that to err on the side of caution is still to err.

I do believe that this is the only life we have and that death is the end of our existence. The faith in an afterlife is based upon wishful thinking and it's posited by those who refuse to accept the inevitable tragedy that is life.

your belief in death as the end of existence is just as valid as those who believe in some sort of afterlife and requires just as much faith.
Remember that to err on the side of caution is still to err.



I do not think that we conceive of any ideas. We contemplate ideas and formulate thoughts about them, but no single individual has the ability to fully understand an idea let alone conceive of one.

Nonsense. What kind of "faith" is required to believe that death fits its own definition? Please define your use of the word faith here? My belief that death is the end of my existence is grounded in the science of biology, the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the psyche of the animal that conceives of an afterlife.

You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.

---------- Post added 04-04-2010 at 11:34 AM ----------

It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.

Nonsense. What kind of "faith" is required to believe that death fits its own definition? Please define your use of the word faith here?

My belief that death is the end of my existence is grounded in the science of biology, the lack of evidence for the supernatural and the psyche of the animal that conceives of an afterlife.

You didn't state your position on the issue, but I'm assuming that it's agnosticism. Agnosticism is a redundant restatement of the principle that all synthetic propositions are subject to doubt. It's a philosophic extension of an inadequate epistemology that, when taken to its logical end, becomes infinite skepticism. Apply this redundant principle to your everyday life and you will simultaneously watch your sanity fade.

It is often said that in old age one is as a child again. Among other things, this notion is grounded in the fact that those who draw closer to death's door are the most likely to believe in the realism of fairytales. They soothe themselves with superstition all the while missing the beauty of it all . . . the tragedy.

what if you based your belief on experience rather than wishful thinking or faith? For the individual who honestly believes that his experience was relevant. Objectively he could be called delusional but subjectively how does he answer the question from a well founded belief.

I base my disbelief in the existence of an afterlife on the science of biology. The science of biology is based on actual experience. Wishing for something and disbelieving in something is not the same thing. I do wish that I could live forever in my apartment, but I know how unrealistic that is so I don't believe that I will live forever in my apartment.

You cannot believe in A and disbelieve in A at the same time. This is precisely why agnosticism is redundant. Either you believe in A or you don't believe in A.

Actually, I use the same definition of faith as everyone else. However, you may have your own version so I will tell you what the definition of faith is as applied here, A belief for which there is no proof. You have to have faith to believe that death is the end of existence. There is no proof it is. Granted there is no proof it is not and thats why any "belief" on the subject is rooted in faith. Your science of biology does nothing to answer this question since science has only ever demonstrated the effects of thought on the body but not yet the origins of thought.

You have no evidence to support an argument that the "self" is constructed of the body alone. If you think you can find some evidence I would love to read it.

That's a clever way to completely misrepresent an ideology. Buy once again, you are quite mistaken. I am not agnostic, and I do not have faith in an afterlife. I know the truth of the immortality of the soul just as much as you think you know that you are real.

You certainly have a warped view of reality. Of course so do all atheists, it probably stems from an inattentive father figure.

Hue..have you never changed your mind , your views? Is everything that certain? Im an atheist of sorts but I am prepared to change my mind given the evidence.

Then hue you are no diferent than I, except my delusion is very impressive, impressive enough for me not to discount the possibility. Sorry I cant argue my position, however frustrating it is. I have developed a type of logic to try an answer my quandary, is that also a delusion? The only argument that annoys me, is me being accused of wishful thinking, that is far from my desires, I hope. But then trying to be honest , it does occur to me on occasions but then the experiences reaffirm my reasoning. I'm a born skeptic with an impossible quandary, pity me.

You're akin to me on this subject, but I'm more affirmative. I will not, however, pity your disposition. Pity will only further weaken an already weary spirit.

You have no evidence to support an argument that the "self" is constructed of the body alone. If you think you can find some evidence I would love to read it.

You certainly have a warped view of reality. Of course so do all atheists, it probably stems from an inattentive father figure.

More nonsense. The measure of proof is apparently still up for debate to most people, but saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that the biological decomposition of an organism is the end of the organism's existence is clearly false. What reason is there to believe that an organism's brain survives the decomposition process other than one's discontent with temporal existence? More importantly, you don't need faith or wishful thinking to disbelieve in a proposition for which there is no evidence. Disbelieving in something does not require that you leap. Either you believe in an afterlife or you don't believe in an afterlife. If you're not sure then that means that you don't believe in an afterlife. Agnosticism is a smug cop out for precisely this reason.

Well thanks. I thought it was clever as well, but it doesn't misrepresent the ideology and just stating that it does doesn't make it so. Claiming that you know the truth of the immortality of the soul as much as I know that I'm real is OK rhetoric, but it is an empty statement unless you can provide evidence. Stating that something is a fact without having evidence of the fact means that it is not a fact, therefore it would be wise not to state it as if it were a fact. You are now contradicting your previous criteria for the justification of a belief or disbelief.

Getting a little testy are we? My father would be very surprised to find out that all this time he's been inattentive. I guess I overestimated your character, because I really didn't expect you to get so personal. I guess that's what you have to do when your arguments are as weak as baby wipes.

The Buddha had some interesting things to say on this topic. He taught that what made up the person is nothing more than five aggregates. All of these aggregates seem to be closely connected to the body. The first is form, which is obviously connected to the body. The next is feeling, then perception then intention and last consciousness. I can't see any of these working without the body. Yet at the same time he says that these five things are what make a person, but there is no substantial self in any of these.

I like how theists like to come up with completely asinine arguments for why someone would believe something. I am an atheist yet I have a very close relationship with my father. So are you saying that I am an exception to your argument, or how about a more realistic explanation. That your argument is completely without basis?

Well, I mean if that is what you CHOOSE to believe thats fine but you are clearly wrong. Since science cannot prove the location of thought within the brain only the areas that are affected by thought, it is simply not science to believe that the brain is the origin of thought. But like I said, if you want to have FAITH that science will someday find the origin of thought in the body, thats entirely up to you. Don't expect to be taken seriously, though.