Hey David f. you raise an interesting -if hardly original- point. As I understand it, Judaism has never emphasised any belief in an afterlife. The thrust of the Torah was the covenant between God and Man, on this plane.
Man screwed up, he got the sh!t kicked out of him -on this plane.
IOW, I'm suggesting your lack of interest in an afterlife is simply a result of your formative education, just as Luciferase's assumption (based on his Catholic upbringing) is that everyone is obsessed with the notion, based on his formative education.
This, to my mind, raises an important point about decision making. In the last few decades we have come to accept, almost without question, that smart people make better decisions. In fact, we have now gone the extra step in believing that highly paid people are necessarily smarter people, and therefore must make the best decisions.
While Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were undeniably very smart people, there is little evidence to suggest your average billionaire is a genius.
People make decisions according to their experience, including their formative education.
A really smart guy who had a really bad childhood is still going to make bad decisions.
For instance, before we judge Chris Hitchens, we need to check his background.
(I just chucked the name in to make this post topical.)

Nup. Does not compute, Luciferase.

>>To claim to be existentialist since birth to the point of having escaped the deepest question doesn't wash with me.<<

Since when is this "the deepest question"?

As david f politely points out, we were not alive before we were born. Why would anyone - other than someone seduced by mysticism - imagine that there is even the remotest possibility that there might be "life" after death? It is contrary to everything we observe about life around us. We bury people six feet underground, for goodness' sake, and don't see them again.

Outside of zombie movies, that is.

We even burn people in an oven and put their ashy remains in a tin can. That can't be good for the aura.

There is no point in suggesting "ah, well, we don't know everything, do we, so it's entirely possible that we are just spirits, inhabiting this earthly form for a while, before...

Before what?

I have had this conversation with a number of earnest folk over the years - quite often they had long blonde hair, like that philosophy graduate - and never failed to be thoroughly entertained by the sheer effort that it takes, to even contemplate an afterlife. So many inherent contradictions, so little logic, so much fantasy.

But you will be pleased to know that I have promised myself that as soon as I have reached a satisfactorily complete answer as to the existence of life on other planets, I shall turn my attention to the concept of a before-life, and an afterlife.

Should be a doddle.

>>I congratulate you on the precocious and well placed faith in science you displayed at such a tender young age, Pericles.<<

Not really. After all, I didn't need to know that much science, to realize that the stories of our universe I was fed in Sunday school were an utter crock. Once I realized that the stars weren't put there my a mystical omnipotent being, I was able to turn my attention to what science was telling me.

Seemed obvious, really.

They all sound the same to me, Grim. They are certainly all true statements as far as I am concerned.

>>“Pericles believes there are no Gods”
“Pericles strongly believes a god or gods do not exist”
“Pericles enjoys (as do I) a system of beliefs (intellectual, social, ethical, rational) which does not require the existence -or putative existence- or any supernatural deities”<<

But by including the words "system of beliefs" in example #3, you surely put it automatically into the same bucket as the others, and could just as easily be described as a "belief" also. Which would be equally wrong.

As I might have mentioned before, there would be no need for the label "atheist", in the absence of theists. Ergo, it is only the theists' positioning that requires the invention of the term atheist.

There is no difference as far as I'm concerned between i) being oblivious to the existence of gods, because no-one has thought them up, and ii) being oblivious to the existence of gods, even though there is a bunch of people going around saying they do exist.

My attitude doesn't change between the two scenarios. If that makes me agnostic in your eyes, so be it. It will not change my view that religion is emotional, not rational, and that the stories that support their faith are designed to exploit those emotions.

Dear Grim,

I am a creature of my upbringing. I try not to make unnecessary generalisations so it is possible that some may have completely escaped their formative conditioning.

Even though I don't believe in a God the ideas that virgins impregnated by spirits can have babies, God appears as man, dead people come back to life, and guilt for sin is transferrable seem more primitive than a real religion. Buddhism, Judaism and Islam seem like real religions to me, but Christianity doesn't quite make the grade. Good science fiction takes one or two elements in our world, changes them and builds a new imaginary world on the changes. Where the improbabilities mount up it is no longer acceptable. Christianity is like second-rate science fiction. There are too many improbabilities.

david f wrote: "I had a Jewish religious education, but I don't remember an afterlife ever being discussed. When I heard of the concept it just seemed pointless."

Afterlife, Olam Ha-Ba http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm Interestingly, the Jewish faith suggests possible reincarnation.

"Pointless"? Do mean pointless in that you didn't care, pointless in that you rejected it, or, pointless in that you had already formed the belief that "We don't live before we're born, and we don't live after we die."?

Anyway, I'm getting the following from you, david f. Neither through your religious upbringing, nor coming to question on your own, have you ever considered whether something of your being may survive physical death.

Sorry, david f, I don't buy it. Your fundamentalist position is derived from decisions based on experiences you have either forgotten or won't acknowledge.

What question is personally deeper than that of the survival of what is your essential, transcendent self? You have taken a position on this, david f, that precludes any other position, i.e. you have chosen to believe one thing and disbelieve other things. That's faith.

Regarding your last post, and Pericles', we all agree here that religion sucks.

Dear Luciferase,

I am aware that there are certain traditions in Judaism that suggest reincarnation. It is something that seems to me pure superstition.

I wish you wouldn’t be so egocentric. You wrote: “Sorry, david f, I don't buy it. Your fundamentalist position is derived from decisions based on experiences you have either forgotten or won't acknowledge.”

Everybody does not have to think like you. The possibility of an afterlife is nothing I have considered in any way. It has never seemed either real or possible.

You also wrote: “have you ever considered whether something of your being may survive physical death.”

Certainly the molecules that compose me will survive my physical death although some will decompose. I wish to be buried in a simple wooden box so that those molecules will be food for whatever creatures are there and will not be wasted.

You seem to be fond of using the word, faith, like a lash. I generally employ Occam’s razor. The position that requires the fewest assumptions is the most likely to fit the facts.

I am not so egocentric as to assume my personal survival is the most important question. I have no reason to think that I have an essential, transcendent self that is apart from my physical body. I don’t go for mysticism.

To me the most important personal question is, “How should I live?”

The locution that something sucks strikes me as both vulgar and unpleasant. Sucking is the first reflex we have, is life-giving and binds us to our mother.