Luciferase,

As david f has stated, the onus is on believers to prove the existence of an 'afterlife', Santa Claus or UFOs, the sceptical don't have to prove anything. There is no evidence that our sense of 'self' is anything more than a product of brain function,so there is no reason to assume that humans, in some way, survive the disintegration of the brain.

mac writes "the onus (of proof) is on believers"

Atheists are believers just as much as are the religious. It it just as much up to skeptics to prove there is nothing there as it is up to believers to prove there is. mac gives a reason for holding his hypothesis/belief, as does UOG. Both positions are not falsifiable, so we are left with simply holding faith in our positions.

Experiments don't prove anything, they just support or falsify a belief/hypothesis, Even if an experiment results in supporting a hypothesis, it does not verify the reason/s given for holding the hypothesis.

Whether you are a devout atheist or devoutly religious is a matter of faith because neither position is falsifiable, or supportable for that matter, by experiment.

History is littered with attempts from either side of the faith divide to try to force its position upon the other. That's when you should really be arcing up, not over trying to win this argument.

Due mainly to a good catholic upbringing, I am a devout atheist, much to my poor mother's chagrin. Living as an atheist trains ones mind to value my time in existence and to use it well as this is the only existence I will have.

You seem to have adopted the same fallacy that religionists enjoy deploying every time they feel threatened, Luciferase.

>>Atheists are believers just as much as are the religious.<<

Atheism is the absence, not the presence, of belief in a deity. The absence of belief is in fact the hallmark of an atheist. They cannot therefore in any sense be described as "believers", in the context of religion.

They can, of course, be believers in democracy, truth, justice and the invincibility of Collingwood football club. But the limits of their belief come to a shuddering stop at religion.

There is a modicum of truth in this, though:

>>Whether you are a devout atheist or devoutly religious is a matter of faith<<

Fortunately for the harmony of the world, the vast majority of our citizenry do not wear the "devout" label.

You could describe Philip Jensen as devoutly religious, in that he sermonizes incessantly about God, and rails vocally against the "Anti-Jesus Industry". You can also describe our friend Richard Dawkins as a devout atheist, in that he sermonizes incessantly about the logic of atheism, and encourages anyone who will listen to stop doing evil in religion's name.

Those, it would be fair to say, are examples of devotion, to religion and to atheism. For the rest of us, I suspect the majority of Christians wear their religion lightly, and don't spend any time whatsoever attempting to convert the heathen. Similarly, the vast majority of atheists hardly give their lack of belief a moment's thought, from one end of the year to the next.

>>History is littered with attempts from either side of the faith divide to try to force its position upon the other.<<

This may well be true. It is however hardly a justification for labelling atheists, "believers". After all, For every believer in Collingwood's superiority, there are legions who don't, and even more who don't give a stuff.

Let's say we are ancient Greeks and I propose that there is light we cannot see and you say there isn't, Pericles.

We have each adopted a belief. If I cannot demonstrate that my belief is true, does it disprove my faith and prove yours?

Even if you simply say "prove it" while remaining agnostic, and I cannot do so, is my faith proven wrong?

"Proof" is a mathematical idea, not a scientific one. Nothing in science is ever proven, only falsified or consistently supported. If a belief/hypothesis is supported over and over and over it might become called a law.

I agree that "religionists" deploy the above defense. Their logic and reason, based on their sense of the world around them leads them to a belief/hypothesis that I don't share based on mine. However, I can't "prove" that they are wrong

mac/quote...""There is no evidence
that our sense of 'self' is anything more
than a product of brain function"""

the brain has as much [enegy]..activity as the brain
some say it hold more..of who we really are
than the ;lol brain

http://www.google.com/search?q=the+heart+brain+electical+activity

so you say its all in the brain
GIVE YOUR PROOF..!

,""so there is no reason to assume
that humans, in some way, survive the disintegration of the brain.""'

you got proof we dont?
or just a faint athiest/hope
based on the physical brain delusion

look cut out the brain..and read it like a book...lol
the self is in the mind..not ther brain...[they arnt the same thing]

but if you got proof
present it..

its funny..how in ignorance once
i didnt believe in god..[for the same ignorant reasons of other athiests..i trusted the science...[a good god wouldnt allow it
religeon would serve the gods creation..[priests couldnt pervert their position..etc]

but now[for me]..its ALL..about god..{good}..[and his creations]
i dont blame ingnorant children..for the lies of their fathers/masters..[peer*s]...

if its not good
its not of god

its all energy
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5742243&sa=U&ei=AT8CT5DGH-KXiAfCs_XkCg&ved=0CCQQFjAG&sig2=nGJFQ6S1cLJAy0QJol1uhg&usg=AFQjCNFMEP4opTb40jyLmHjEjWryvWaxWg

so energy belongs to god
[your brain aint making much of it
so listen to your heart..[like the mind does]

believe with passion
dissbelieve in ignorance
or visa versa..[salt that has lost its taste..is nuthin]

I think Luciferase raises a legitimate point concerning the more 'strident' atheists, as Dawkins has declared he has been accused of.
Sorry Pericles, while I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I'm not so sure of this sentence:
“They cannot therefore in any sense be described as "believers", in the context of religion.”
I think there is a (fine) distinction between non belief in God, and belief in non God -which many atheists seem to have, although I recall even Dawkins didn't give himself 10 out of 10 for atheism.
This is largely why I choose to describe myself as a 'de facto' atheist; I think this is a situation where the truth really doesn't matter; ie I really don't think it matters whether a supreme being exists or not. The real questions are, does such a being know we exist, and does it care? (if it exists.)
This is where evidence is distinctly lacking. Considering what we now know of the size of the universe (s), It seems remarkably arrogant to me. Much like an individual mourning, when one of his skin cells dies.
On the -not necessarily related- question of "life after death" the sloppy use of language has always annoyed me. Surely the question should be whether or not consciousness and sense of identity survive? Certainly “life” goes on, at least at a cellular level. Imagine, say, if each surviving cell carries a mote of consciousness, which becomes a part of something like Jung's 'collective unconscious'. A worthy end perhaps, but hardly of much use to me as an individual. Perhaps we should eat the very good people (ala Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land), burn the very bad ones and just inter the rest? No sillier than a lot of other religious concepts.
Again, evidence is distinctly lacking.
No doubt, one day I'll be dying to find out.