Life after death,but different as you used to know!

I can jsut repeat myself:
Set everything back to the big bang,and let it bang till you exist again as something or someone else,the same existential source that made you come into this life.

Yes,and then everything starts all over again ;-D

i hope not, once is enough

I think they call this "begging the question."

How can you possibly KNOW that things are the same after you die as they were before you were born???

They MAY BE...but they MAY BE NOT!

Can you wrap your mind around that concept?

The notion that things are the same after death as they were before you were born, OK, is purely a blind guess on your part.

Do you understand that?

That, by the way, is the reason I asked you the first question I did when entering this discussion.

There are blind guesses and then there are 'blinders.'

According to science,and that's the whole base of my thesis,
there is no difference between you before your were born and after your dead.
It's both non-existence.
As long as there are no other facts,I assume everything what science assumes.

C'mon. Science doesn't know beans about any of this...not "before born" or "after death."

You have entered a philosophical area... one most scientists would touch with a 10 foot pole.

It is all speculation.

Yup, I agree there completely.

I wish the theists and atheists who insist one way or the other on questions of this sort would take off the blinders...and acknowledge the blind guesses they are making.

I have no other choice,but assuming science as correct.
I don't want to make up some unicorn-like-stuff like other people and religions do and mess up with science.
Speculating with imagination is non-sense.

Forget it.You can't make an ideology out of atheism.
Atheism is the lack of belief.
If you assume you have an unicorn in your garage,it's not up to me to proove you wrong.It's you who needs to get proofs.
Atheism is not a blind guess,it's not believing one guy who tells you stuff.
Not believing some guy says is comprehensible .

I didn't realize we were talking about atheism, but I have no problem whatever in discussing atheism as practiced by many...as an ideology.




Atheism can be a lack of belief...but often atheism is very much belief.



You gotta do some work on that. That thought is closer to bizarre than thoughtful.




Often it is. Try to deal with that. In any case, we are not talking about atheism. We are talking about whether or not there is a spiritual component to what happens after death. I say we do not know...all we can do is speculate. What are you saying?



You've got to do some work on that also. Same problem as above.

Of course you do.

You can, for instance, assume science is wrong. It often has been.

You can assume science may be right on this...may be wrong. So you have a choice to be undecided.

One can also inform oneself sufficiently to make an educated assessment of the evidenced offered, to judge the plausibility of the thesis. On that basis, theism is particularly lame.

YOU started the atheism topic,not me,atheism is by defintion no ideology and no blind guess,it's the lack of belief!

Been alone in the definition of each favored of God, the basis is any evidence that theists are already on their feet. How do you define something too vague? And sometimes brings a rudimentary existence, such a definition, we have only a second after a further definition of the faithful and to ask those on the side of the first to ask. House of cards.

Is there a component or attribute of God can be known and proven beyond reasonable doubt? Anything?

No. God is "unknowable".

Is there a component or attribute of God which can be measured and proven beyond reasonable doubt? Anything?

No. God is "immeasurably".

But now the same unknow- and even immeasurable, completely indistinguishable from the non-existent. It has no feature. And if the theist but now says something unknow- and immeasurable exist yet, so I know not, nor did he even know what he's talking about.

When the theist says that is something that no detectable manifestation would be having still exists and it is but at the same time incapable of showing the working out this absolutely necessary distinctions for non-existent, which have made him such a conclusion can be come, it is absolutely not present any problem, the statement dismiss this matter.

If the theist then in another, only a latent defiance, helpless and powerless, spiritually clear lacquered "but nevertheless" can come up, the case is settled.

And agnosticism is in fact atheism.

Forget this red herring about "guesswork". No statement about "self"is worth discussing unless you address the identity issue. If memory discontinues, what tangible connection can be made linking one hypothetical instance of "self" to another ? Irrespective of its apparently complete failure with respect to its ontological status, your idea even fails as a psychological palliative to counter fear of loss of self at death.

Guessing about what happened before life and what happens after death does not have to be a guess without any good basis. An atheist can say birth is like death because "I have been knocked unconscious and aparently time passed without my knowledge." If the connection between a lack of brain function and lack of self existence can be drawn from such a case and other similar cases, then from this understanding we could draw the conclusion that with no brain activity due to death there is no longer mental activity. Whether this is actually true or not can only be supposed from a body of experiences. On the other hand, a religious person may say "I have been hit in the head and while you saw me lying still on the ground I saw God and He/She/It spoke to me." . From this and similar experiences we may draw the conclusion that death is like lying still on the ground for eternity and so there will be an infinite time experienced in the presence of God. Whether this is true or not... well it is not true.

Well,my idea was never supposed to take fear of loosing your "self".
It shall just take the fear of beeing forever dead,there is no connection between your first existence,and the next one after you die and so on,it's just the same principle of life that took you here in the first place.
It's always a restart,start from 0.

WHAT restarts ? And if the self does not know who the hell does ?
You talk about the same principle of life. SAME AS WHAT ?
We can argue that a general life principle is continuously operating across generations, but not ending and restarting a particular life.

No one,that's the whole point of the thesis,
what comes again is your existence,the process resarts with which you came in this world once.
When you're born,you are born without any character or memories.
This clear existence is the start of every life,the "self" comes later.
But this clear existence,in my thesis comes again and again out of non-existence like it did right now the life you're living in.

What makes "existence" person specific ?

Unless you address the continuity of identity issue you are talking gibberish.