Your views on Death.

[Kakkoii]

Eh, it doesn't make sense for it to "end" at death. The only reason we think it ends is that we can't see beyond that point. Exactly how we thought the world "ended".

I'm glad that someone else thinks that it just doesn't make sense to end at death.

Lol? You two made me lawl.. Seeing as how millions of people have that same view, due to a little thing called "religion".

People not being able to accept that this is all there is to life has been one of the main driving forces behind the growth of religions for thousands of years.

a lot of people today in fact most people that i know and almost everyone i have spoken to on the internet doesn't believe in life after death due to a little thing called "atheism". but my response to the comment wasn't about religion it was about a gut feeling that death seems unnatural or wrong not that it doesn't happen or isn't the end. the majority of people religious people included except death as a natural inevitability or do you think that anyone other than the Scientologists think that their never going to die? maybe im not as smart as you think you are, but i'm not an idiot, i am able to except death as being the end, but then i am also "open minded" enough to understand that life after death is also possibility. we dont know what happens to consciousness when we die, and science still cant explain absolutely where human consciousness even resides. nevertheless im glad that my utter foolishness gave you a laugh.

I agree that on the Internet, the ratio of Atheistic people to Religious people is pretty close. But population wise, the last census done in the US showed Atheism as only being just above 20%. Which is still nice, since it's increased with ever poll over the decades.

Of course death feels wrong, I wasn't refuting that. I was replying to your comment about death not being the end. And I don't know where you get this idea that religious people don't believe in life after death, since that's pretty much the main driving force behind the whole freaking thing.

And science can explain consciousness pretty well actually, you just need to go out and search for the information, because it is very complicated and isn't usually something you pick up from forum discussions. Consciousness is mainly a function a brain develops from being aware of it's own existence. Some primates have shown behavior akin to consciousness, such as premeditated planning. Sure, our understanding of consciousness isn't 100%, but were getting pretty close as our technology advances and our understanding of brain mechanics increases.

Death truly is wrong, it's a genetic flaw that varies in severity from creature to creature.
Scientist's are working hard to find a way to fix our genetic self repair & protection systems so that we can live forever. It's truly very sound science, and in most likelihood should bring great developments within the next 2 decades. If your young like me, you very well could live long enough to receive treatments that would allow you to live on healthy for ages to come.

Ohh, and it doesn't mean I'm not "open minded" just because I don't believe in life after death. I'm merely rational. Yes, there very well could be life after death! But the chance of that being true is so small that it's like 1 in a bagillion. I could make up some other crap about things after death, like for instance:
"Oh, did you know that flying unicorns come down and greet you when you die, giving you a tour of the galaxy and then granting you 10 wishes for use in the afterlife?"

I have no proof of this, just like there's no proof of an after life. But does that mean I can disprove it? NO! But that doesn't make it a logical choice.

\

firstly i never said that religious people don't believe in life after death. and sure its a leap of faith to believe that there is life after death but to be an atheist is to take a leap of faith as well, for instance where did all the matter in the universe come from? spontaneous generation? I'm sure your answer will be that matter can not be created or destroyed but then your not really starting at zero, at the beginning then are you. and with guerrillas and dolphins which im sick of hearing about by the way we can talk about them whenever they start building rockets and planes. isnt it curious that although ever species on the planet had equal opportunity to advance or evolve to are level of cognition we are the only ones? also everyone quotes the mighty sciences like there not all going to change in a few hundred years anyway. think about it every few hundred years we find that everything we new about the world was wrong. and i cant believe your going to try to tell me that we cant cure male pattern baldness but we can fully understand something as intangible as human conscientiousness. even are ideas of something as fundamental as gravity we find is wrong. we can see that celestial body's moving outward from the galaxy are not slowing down like they should be according to gravity but in fact speeding up and i could go on and on. sorry im not trying to be a dick but im just so sick of people on the internet acting like there fucking Bill Nye the science guy. i don't care if anyone wants to be an atheist it just pisses me off when they tell me my chooses are illogical, its insulting and pretentious.

Atheism isn't a leap of faith, because there is no faith involved. What we don't know the answer too, we have to say we don't know, and merely create theories, then do testing until said theories can be proven or disproven. I don't know where all the matter/energy came from, we may never know for sure. For now all we can do is guess. That question applies to science and religion, because where did a God come from? And if God was "eternal", then why can that same argument not be used to merely say energy is eternal. Sounds a lot more logical for the energy to be eternal, then a somehow all knowing intelligent God who can do anything he wants being the first thing around to create everything.

Curing male pattern baldness is genetics, which is a lot more tricky. DNA has tons of points to look at and compare. Then once you manage to find whatever gene it is that needs to be turned on/off to prevent baldness, you then have to create/find a drug that can turn this gene on/off. It is very complicated, but it's really not that far off. Genetic reading/manipulation technology is advancing at a very rapid rate.

If we genetically modified a primate to have a brain the size of ours, then I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the primate would be able learn and think just as good as us, perhaps with a few variable differences due to slight differences in brain architecture.

And no, it's not curious that we're the only ones that are this smart, because that would be implying there is some sort of brain power limit. We merely possess the most advanced brains on the planet, but we don't possess eye's quality of a hawk now do we? Or the nose quality of a dog? These both would be greatly beneficial traits that we have had "equal opportunity to advance" to.

Our understanding hasn't really vastly changed every 100 years, it's merely slowly grown, with a few minor breakthroughs a long the way that changed the core understandings. Changes in our understanding obviously can't go on forever, so that argument doesn't hold much value, as we must reach the end point at some time. And yes, our understanding of gravity is still poor, because unlike pretty much everything else, you can't see gravity, only the effects it has on mass.

And not "trying to be a dick", but it would be nice if you used at least a bit better grammar/spelling. I'm not asking for perfectly written messages, just that you try and make it look like your an educated adult. Because right now when I read your writing, it gives off the feel of a 13 year old. No offense, that's just how it looks.

wow way to take a cheap shot with my grammar and spelling that was certainly acting like a mature educated adult there is nothing else i really have to say to you seeing as how you have no interest in having a friendly debate and because of your obviously narrow minded view of life and the universe in general you cant see past the flawed modern method of antithesis there is nothing that you have said that i haven't read before i am educated and educated and free enough to reject what ever grammar i choose to

i hope that was good and hard to read this isn't a class room and you are not a teacher

As I stated right before you posted, it wasn't a cheap shot or insult. I was just giving some friendly advice. This may not be a classroom, but it's real life. And in real life, people make judgments based on the way your present yourself online. You blast me for making one little suggestion, while you have the nerve to call me narrow minded.

I took the time to write a long detailed response just for you. If you've heard all these arguments before, then you should have no problem refuting them.

i don't have any problem refuting them its just that nothing is absolute and i cant absolutely prove you wrong just as you cant absolutely prove me wrong. also i don't think that either of us are going to change our minds on the subject because of this conversation. I'm very aware that this is real life i just don't think real life is to be taken so seriously and i have long since past the point of caring about peoples judgments. the narrow minded thing came after your little grammar insult but still sorry if it hurt your feelings and thank you for writing me a long response.

Well I'd say an atom or a photon is absolute ;P. And I'm not asking you to "absolutely" prove me wrong. I'm asking you to put forth what it is that makes you believe what I said is wrong. Ya know, like, why have any discussions/arguments at all then if nothing can be absolutely proven? Because it's not about absolutely 100% proving, it's just about trying to find the most logical answer.

The reason I see your absolute faith in science as wrong is this:

1. Nothing can be objectively known, not even this, nor atom or photon, because with our limited senses we cannot perceive reality wholly, and are perception is distorted by a multitude of biological and psychological factors and is therefor unreliable. When we perceive it we change it.

2. We perceive the universe around us and and make assumptions on its past and future according to our limited perception but can neither perceive or be aware of such events, and therefor such events are immeasurable.

3. The universe is non-static everything is in constant flux, always changing, morphing on both micro and macro levels and because of this constant flux and our inability to perceive the future or the past the universe and all things are therefore immeasurable.

4. Science is the human interpretation of the universe and this interpretation can only be proven correct by the interpreter using the same cognitive faculties as used in the interpretation. If there is an unknown error in interpretation cause by flaws in human cognitive faculties which, the interpreter, mankind, is unaware of the conclusion of tested hypothesis is incorrect. If we doubt our interpretation which we logically must, then we must also doubt our reliability in testing our interpretation's correctness. If our interpretation comes from a computer it's reliability must still must be doubted because of the impossibility of an imperfect being creating a prefect or reliable anything. example: computer crashes, the car braking down ext..

5.Nothing can be proven on the grounds that you must have proof of your correctness, and you must also have proof of your proofs correctness as well, ad infinitum.

I'm just trying to show you the chaos we live in, that we know nothing, and that any belief is illogical, and that you and your beliefs are not immune to the illogicality of all things. I hope that this shows you why I think your weapon (logic) is so dull.

I asked you to refute the things I said. Basically the answer your giving is that you can know nothing and thus have no answer to give.

1.) We don't have to use our own senses to examine things. We use inanimate tools to gain precise observations of the things that make up our universe and daily lives.

2.) That didn't make much sense, so I can't really reply to that one.

3.) Of course everything is constantly moving, but that's doesn't make things immeasurable. I can measure a window for example, but sure I can't actually measure it's absolute width due to it's constant "flux", but can get pretty damn close. Although a physicist could create a calculation to account for the fluctuation and thus give an exact variable measurement.

4.) Math is a perfect thing though, we did not create it, we merely learned it. And Math is what's used to verify our interpretations. Math is the language of the universe.

5.) Me and you are standing in a room with an empty table in front of us. I place an Apple on the table. I then tell you that there is an Apple on the table, you ask me for proof, and I say look for yourself. You can see the Apple is there, you can touch it, taste it and smell it, and thus it is proven. You do not require proof of the proof.

Sure you can say, well that's just relying on our senses that could have some sort of flaw that could mean what were perceiving might not really be what it is! OMG! Well that doesn't really matter. Because it is still proof of things of which we are perceiving, even if it's only in our own minds, it's what makes up our universe, it's what effects US!

And I don't "believe", I stick with the evidence. It doesn't matter if you think life isn't what we perceive it to be, because how everyone perceives it interacting with them currently, is the only thing that matters, and thus the proof of things in this perceptive universe is as good as proof gets.

 

[Kakkoii]

Eh, it doesn't make sense for it to "end" at death. The only reason we think it ends is that we can't see beyond that point. Exactly how we thought the world "ended".

I'm glad that someone else thinks that it just doesn't make sense to end at death.

Lol? You two made me lawl.. Seeing as how millions of people have that same view, due to a little thing called "religion".

People not being able to accept that this is all there is to life has been one of the main driving forces behind the growth of religions for thousands of years.

a lot of people today in fact most people that i know and almost everyone i have spoken to on the internet doesn't believe in life after death due to a little thing called "atheism". but my response to the comment wasn't about religion it was about a gut feeling that death seems unnatural or wrong not that it doesn't happen or isn't the end. the majority of people religious people included except death as a natural inevitability or do you think that anyone other than the Scientologists think that their never going to die? maybe im not as smart as you think you are, but i'm not an idiot, i am able to except death as being the end, but then i am also "open minded" enough to understand that life after death is also possibility. we dont know what happens to consciousness when we die, and science still cant explain absolutely where human consciousness even resides. nevertheless im glad that my utter foolishness gave you a laugh.

I agree that on the Internet, the ratio of Atheistic people to Religious people is pretty close. But population wise, the last census done in the US showed Atheism as only being just above 20%. Which is still nice, since it's increased with ever poll over the decades.

Of course death feels wrong, I wasn't refuting that. I was replying to your comment about death not being the end. And I don't know where you get this idea that religious people don't believe in life after death, since that's pretty much the main driving force behind the whole freaking thing.

And science can explain consciousness pretty well actually, you just need to go out and search for the information, because it is very complicated and isn't usually something you pick up from forum discussions. Consciousness is mainly a function a brain develops from being aware of it's own existence. Some primates have shown behavior akin to consciousness, such as premeditated planning. Sure, our understanding of consciousness isn't 100%, but were getting pretty close as our technology advances and our understanding of brain mechanics increases.

Death truly is wrong, it's a genetic flaw that varies in severity from creature to creature.
Scientist's are working hard to find a way to fix our genetic self repair & protection systems so that we can live forever. It's truly very sound science, and in most likelihood should bring great developments within the next 2 decades. If your young like me, you very well could live long enough to receive treatments that would allow you to live on healthy for ages to come.

Ohh, and it doesn't mean I'm not "open minded" just because I don't believe in life after death. I'm merely rational. Yes, there very well could be life after death! But the chance of that being true is so small that it's like 1 in a bagillion. I could make up some other crap about things after death, like for instance:
"Oh, did you know that flying unicorns come down and greet you when you die, giving you a tour of the galaxy and then granting you 10 wishes for use in the afterlife?"

I have no proof of this, just like there's no proof of an after life. But does that mean I can disprove it? NO! But that doesn't make it a logical choice.

\

firstly i never said that religious people don't believe in life after death. and sure its a leap of faith to believe that there is life after death but to be an atheist is to take a leap of faith as well, for instance where did all the matter in the universe come from? spontaneous generation? I'm sure your answer will be that matter can not be created or destroyed but then your not really starting at zero, at the beginning then are you. and with guerrillas and dolphins which im sick of hearing about by the way we can talk about them whenever they start building rockets and planes. isnt it curious that although ever species on the planet had equal opportunity to advance or evolve to are level of cognition we are the only ones? also everyone quotes the mighty sciences like there not all going to change in a few hundred years anyway. think about it every few hundred years we find that everything we new about the world was wrong. and i cant believe your going to try to tell me that we cant cure male pattern baldness but we can fully understand something as intangible as human conscientiousness. even are ideas of something as fundamental as gravity we find is wrong. we can see that celestial body's moving outward from the galaxy are not slowing down like they should be according to gravity but in fact speeding up and i could go on and on. sorry im not trying to be a dick but im just so sick of people on the internet acting like there fucking Bill Nye the science guy. i don't care if anyone wants to be an atheist it just pisses me off when they tell me my chooses are illogical, its insulting and pretentious.

Atheism isn't a leap of faith, because there is no faith involved. What we don't know the answer too, we have to say we don't know, and merely create theories, then do testing until said theories can be proven or disproven. I don't know where all the matter/energy came from, we may never know for sure. For now all we can do is guess. That question applies to science and religion, because where did a God come from? And if God was "eternal", then why can that same argument not be used to merely say energy is eternal. Sounds a lot more logical for the energy to be eternal, then a somehow all knowing intelligent God who can do anything he wants being the first thing around to create everything.

Curing male pattern baldness is genetics, which is a lot more tricky. DNA has tons of points to look at and compare. Then once you manage to find whatever gene it is that needs to be turned on/off to prevent baldness, you then have to create/find a drug that can turn this gene on/off. It is very complicated, but it's really not that far off. Genetic reading/manipulation technology is advancing at a very rapid rate.

If we genetically modified a primate to have a brain the size of ours, then I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the primate would be able learn and think just as good as us, perhaps with a few variable differences due to slight differences in brain architecture.

And no, it's not curious that we're the only ones that are this smart, because that would be implying there is some sort of brain power limit. We merely possess the most advanced brains on the planet, but we don't possess eye's quality of a hawk now do we? Or the nose quality of a dog? These both would be greatly beneficial traits that we have had "equal opportunity to advance" to.

Our understanding hasn't really vastly changed every 100 years, it's merely slowly grown, with a few minor breakthroughs a long the way that changed the core understandings. Changes in our understanding obviously can't go on forever, so that argument doesn't hold much value, as we must reach the end point at some time. And yes, our understanding of gravity is still poor, because unlike pretty much everything else, you can't see gravity, only the effects it has on mass.

And not "trying to be a dick", but it would be nice if you used at least a bit better grammar/spelling. I'm not asking for perfectly written messages, just that you try and make it look like your an educated adult. Because right now when I read your writing, it gives off the feel of a 13 year old. No offense, that's just how it looks.

wow way to take a cheap shot with my grammar and spelling that was certainly acting like a mature educated adult there is nothing else i really have to say to you seeing as how you have no interest in having a friendly debate and because of your obviously narrow minded view of life and the universe in general you cant see past the flawed modern method of antithesis there is nothing that you have said that i haven't read before i am educated and educated and free enough to reject what ever grammar i choose to

i hope that was good and hard to read this isn't a class room and you are not a teacher

As I stated right before you posted, it wasn't a cheap shot or insult. I was just giving some friendly advice. This may not be a classroom, but it's real life. And in real life, people make judgments based on the way your present yourself online. You blast me for making one little suggestion, while you have the nerve to call me narrow minded.

I took the time to write a long detailed response just for you. If you've heard all these arguments before, then you should have no problem refuting them.

i don't have any problem refuting them its just that nothing is absolute and i cant absolutely prove you wrong just as you cant absolutely prove me wrong. also i don't think that either of us are going to change our minds on the subject because of this conversation. I'm very aware that this is real life i just don't think real life is to be taken so seriously and i have long since past the point of caring about peoples judgments. the narrow minded thing came after your little grammar insult but still sorry if it hurt your feelings and thank you for writing me a long response.

Well I'd say an atom or a photon is absolute ;P. And I'm not asking you to "absolutely" prove me wrong. I'm asking you to put forth what it is that makes you believe what I said is wrong. Ya know, like, why have any discussions/arguments at all then if nothing can be absolutely proven? Because it's not about absolutely 100% proving, it's just about trying to find the most logical answer.

The reason I see your absolute faith in science as wrong is this:

1. Nothing can be objectively known, not even this, nor atom or photon, because with our limited senses we cannot perceive reality wholly, and are perception is distorted by a multitude of biological and psychological factors and is therefor unreliable. When we perceive it we change it.

2. We perceive the universe around us and and make assumptions on its past and future according to our limited perception but can neither perceive or be aware of such events, and therefor such events are immeasurable.

3. The universe is non-static everything is in constant flux, always changing, morphing on both micro and macro levels and because of this constant flux and our inability to perceive the future or the past the universe and all things are therefore immeasurable.

4. Science is the human interpretation of the universe and this interpretation can only be proven correct by the interpreter using the same cognitive faculties as used in the interpretation. If there is an unknown error in interpretation cause by flaws in human cognitive faculties which, the interpreter, mankind, is unaware of the conclusion of tested hypothesis is incorrect. If we doubt our interpretation which we logically must, then we must also doubt our reliability in testing our interpretation's correctness. If our interpretation comes from a computer it's reliability must still must be doubted because of the impossibility of an imperfect being creating a prefect or reliable anything. example: computer crashes, the car braking down ext..

5.Nothing can be proven on the grounds that you must have proof of your correctness, and you must also have proof of your proofs correctness as well, ad infinitum.

I'm just trying to show you the chaos we live in, that we know nothing, and that any belief is illogical, and that you and your beliefs are not immune to the illogicality of all things. I hope that this shows you why I think your weapon (logic) is so dull.

I asked you to refute the things I said. Basically the answer your giving is that you can know nothing and thus have no answer to give.

1.) We don't have to use our own senses to examine things. We use inanimate tools to gain precise observations of the things that make up our universe and daily lives.

2.) That didn't make much sense, so I can't really reply to that one.

3.) Of course everything is constantly moving, but that's doesn't make things immeasurable. I can measure a window for example, but sure I can't actually measure it's absolute width due to it's constant "flux", but can get pretty damn close. Although a physicist could create a calculation to account for the fluctuation and thus give an exact variable measurement.

4.) Math is a perfect thing though, we did not create it, we merely learned it. And Math is what's used to verify our interpretations. Math is the language of the universe.

5.) Me and you are standing in a room with an empty table in front of us. I place an Apple on the table. I then tell you that there is an Apple on the table, you ask me for proof, and I say look for yourself. You can see the Apple is there, you can touch it, taste it and smell it, and thus it is proven. You do not require proof of the proof.

Sure you can say, well that's just relying on our senses that could have some sort of flaw that could mean what were perceiving might not really be what it is! OMG! Well that doesn't really matter. Because it is still proof of things of which we are perceiving, even if it's only in our own minds, it's what makes up our universe, it's what effects US!

And I don't "believe", I stick with the evidence. It doesn't matter if you think life isn't what we perceive it to be, because how everyone perceives it interacting with them currently, is the only thing that matters, and thus the proof of things in this perceptive universe is as good as proof gets.

not really a very strong reply, for instance why is what they perceive currently the only thing that matters that's not a very "scientific" mentality. mankind at one time perceived that the world was flat. why try to change that perception if the current most popular way of thinking is the only thing that matters. and it seems like your saying your willing to accept whatever proof however flawed as long a some other flawed human deems it correct. that my friend is not just belief its a leap of faith, when looking to my previous reply which you seem to not really be able to refute. nevertheless it was nice talking to you but im going to move on to talking about something else.

Sorry for the late reply, been busy.

My reply was wonky because I was basing it on what I thought you meant, that you were implying what our senses show us probably isn't reality, and thus our conclusions can't be trusted. And thus when I said only the way we perceive it now matters, I was basing that on what I thought you meant. Meaning that if this is the reality we live in and perceive and effect, then it's all that really matters, because it is what our lives and universe is to us.

So yeah, the hole post is out the window cause I guess you didn't mean it that way.

Now in reply. Yes there have been popular perceptions of things over time that turned out to be flawed. But those were THEORIES. Sure they were popular theories that so many people believed that they would cite them as fact, but they were still theories. You seem to think that I believe in scientific theories, that I take them as fact. But I do not, I know many so called Atheist's and many others do that though. I only believe in what is no longer a theory, but a fact. And when it comes to theories, I know at least I do not "believe" in a certain theory, I merely state which one I think is the most logical, but I do not follow it like you would a religion. I live waiting for new scientific discoveries to either further validate a theory, or invalidate it. That's what science is all about.

If a scientist makes a claim that blowing a bubble in space creates a worm hole, well then it just becomes a theory. To be proven, I would require live video footage of this theory being tested in space, if it creates a wormhole, then it's been proven. (Obviously this is a ridiculous theory, just making an example.)


Also, would you mind replying to this one:

Atheism isn't a leap of faith, because there is no faith involved. What we don't know the answer too, we have to say we don't know, and merely create theories, then do testing until said theories can be proven or disproven. I don't know where all the matter/energy came from, we may never know for sure. For now all we can do is guess. That question applies to science and religion, because where did a God come from? And if God was "eternal", then why can that same argument not be used to merely say energy is eternal. Sounds a lot more logical for the energy to be eternal, then a somehow all knowing intelligent God who can do anything he wants being the first thing around to create everything.

Curing male pattern baldness is genetics, which is a lot more tricky. DNA has tons of points to look at and compare. Then once you manage to find whatever gene it is that needs to be turned on/off to prevent baldness, you then have to create/find a drug that can turn this gene on/off. It is very complicated, but it's really not that far off. Genetic reading/manipulation technology is advancing at a very rapid rate.

If we genetically modified a primate to have a brain the size of ours, then I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the primate would be able learn and think just as good as us, perhaps with a few variable differences due to slight differences in brain architecture.

And no, it's not curious that we're the only ones that are this smart, because that would be implying there is some sort of brain power limit. We merely possess the most advanced brains on the planet, but we don't possess eye's quality of a hawk now do we? Or the nose quality of a dog? These both would be greatly beneficial traits that we have had "equal opportunity to advance" to.

Our understanding hasn't really vastly changed every 100 years, it's merely slowly grown, with a few minor breakthroughs a long the way that changed the core understandings. Changes in our understanding obviously can't go on forever, so that argument doesn't hold much value, as we must reach the end point at some time. And yes, our understanding of gravity is still poor, because unlike pretty much everything else, you can't see gravity, only the effects it has on mass.

And not "trying to be a dick", but it would be nice if you used at least a bit better grammar/spelling. I'm not asking for perfectly written messages, just that you try and make it look like your an educated adult. Because right now when I read your writing, it gives off the feel of a 13 year old. No offense, that's just how it looks.

I never really got your thoughts on the stuff I said in that post, you just said you've heard it lot's of times before. So I'd like to hear why you think about the things I said specifically if you have the time... Thanks.

 

[Kakkoii]

i don't really know what else to say other than to restate my philosophical views which are absurdism without nihilism, meaning that i don't believe i can prove anything or that anyone else can; and that to think any belief (or whatever word you wish to use) is without faith or is absolutely provable is absurd.

also just a moment lets pretend that we're gambling with this subject. you bet there is nothing after death, i bet there is, and then we both die. if your right we both just bask in the nothingness of oblivion forever and you'll never know you where right and you will get nothing for being right so in the end you still lose. then lets say im right and there is an afterlife i end up getting to enjoy it and according to my belief you just stay dead and so you lose again. so your bet is a lose lose my bet is a lose win, which is more logical.

I don't loose if there's nothingness, because I'm am not alive anymore to experience said loss. And if there happened to be some sort of after life, it's ridiculous to think that you would be banished from it for questioning it using the brain you were supposedly given. Any God that would be so petty to banish it's own creations for the intelligence it gave them, is no God I would want to live with.

Plus, since I don't believe in an after life, I will be striving to live as long as I can, if not forever (barring some unknown accident of course). I will always cherish this life the most, because It's most likely the only one we have. So I win in that sense.