Ignorance about origin does not increse the credibility of supernatural creator, it only means that we are ignorant.

Our energy does go on of course, but that does not mean that it carries any memories or impression of us with it.

We can't put God on par with scientific theory because the theory has at least a % chance of being true according to the information that formed it, even if it's a small % chance.  But saying that we don't know the answer doesn't put a supernatural power on equal par with scientific theory because it is baseless and the only reason you want to put it on par is because we don't have more certainty.

I can't stress enough that our ignorance does not increase the chance of a supernatural power, it only means that we don't yet know but someday may. 

I actually didn't intend to use the word "you" so much as "one".

I just don't believe, without the historical context of people wanting to believe in fairy tale creatures, there would be any reason why one would jump to explore that as an option.

I put that on par with seeing a cookie on the table, not knowing how it got there. Your options become "my kid put it there" or "my wife put it there" or, just to explore options "a fairy flew in through the window and shat out the cookie onto the table". We know that there are 2 other people in the house, why would you even give a consideration to option #3? You can't, within the confines of the moment and without further investigation, disprove that it is what happened but that is not a reason to consider it a valid option.

The only logical thing to do in this case is to admit ignorance and do further investigation.

I don't understand the premise. Do I have actual data that excludes the possibility of an afterlife and gods, or am I making a logical or probabilistic case based on all theological claims I've been exposed to (the latter being the only possibility I can think of)?

Define consequence. Is death the consequence itself (ceasing to exist as an agency), or are you begging the question for an afterlife?

Technically, a separation would no longer be possible, as there would not be two points.

I'm leaning ignostic/noncognativist, so not so much.

It's an appeal to emotion fallacy. Emotions demonstrate feelings, not evidentiary claims.

The former sounds like what Dennett describes as agency detection, which you can probably find referenced online somewhere. The latter, I don't understand.

OK. It depends on the value you place on empiricism. Appeals to emotion aren't applicable by evidentiary standards, but life isn't lived by those standards at all times. I can't account for what your belief exercise means to you, but it doesn't prove anything to me.

Creation myths tend not to even describe the universe as we understand it today, so claims that they account for its creation are at best superficial, and too vague to be useful. Further, it's a false dichotomy and appeal to ignorance to say that a lack of information leaves the answer to default to a familiar, but totally unsubstantiated answer. If there's a case for a universe-creating agency, it has to be made on its own.

In what way? What is "something" to the universe? By what criteria?

That's also a false dichotomy. Either is a case that would need to be made on its own.

The case for dualism has not been made, so far as I can tell.

Mitch, sorry man, we had to ditch your avatar.  It was over 3 megs and caused a strobing glitch in some browsers.  That strobing glitch could cause certain types of people to slip into a seizure. 

Pick an avatar less than .5 mb and less than 153x190 and re-upload.

"souls" is just another fictional word in the lexicon of the theist based on the false appeal of the "warm fuzzies" of "wouldnt it be nice if".

When our brain dies, thats it, we die, we no longer exist with the exception of the memories of those who survive us and our atoms become part of something else, just like an atom is transfered from an apple to our bodies as part of a molicule when we eat it.

This kind of speculation is a reaction to fear of facing one's own mortality. It is a very base instinct of survival to want to continue. The problem is that the human mind is also capabable of inventing fictional utopias to give oneself the false comfort of continuing beyond one's own death.

Atheists have can have the normal fear of pain and fear of not living, but we dont incert a magical explination into a natural part of life. Death is part of life and there is no need for Suprman vs Kriptonite to explain normal mundain human phycology. 

I don't think that our feelings about something can provide us with much information about the objective universe. Our brains are evolved to help us find food, shelter, help and mates. They are highly optimized for this task and filter everything through perceptual filters designed to help us extract just this information from the universe. As pure data-gathering instruments, they suck.

So, no, I don't think our feelings about death, afterlife or souls point to much in particular.

As for how to bear the thought of death, I don't know. I think it helps to be mentally and emotionally healthy. I think it helps to not have a lot of unresolved regrets. I think it helps a LOT to have kids. All I know is that I've never believed in heaven or hell and the idea of death doesn't particularly bother me (unless it seems imminent, which is more of a visceral fear reaction than a product of reflection).

No, as I would define "possible." We have no evidence for such a thing. Nor are there any theories explaining how such an energy matrix would stay coherent without any physical medium. Absent any empirical or logical grounds, I put it into the realm of fantasy or, at best, wild speculation.

I can understand the OP being concerned with regard to death and the thoughts that it conjures in the mind such as an afterlife, family, god, hell, consequence etc. Fear of the unknown is a strong driver for wanting something of a positive outcome. We are programmed to survive. Everything we do (talking broadly) is geared towards reproduction and the first mechanism to ensure that takes place is survival.

Every human that has ever lived has thought about the big question if they were mentally capable of doing so, infact I think that is a big part of what a human or sentient being is. The realisation of one's own immortality.

I have thought about this long and hard and I've come to the terms with my own death and my conclusion is that when I go I'm not actually going to know much about it. Here today, gone tomorrow, or rather here this second, gone the next, so I don't actually fear the death of my brain. It will just happen. I hope that the exit is not long, drawn out and tortuously painful mind you and I think that is where most people's fear comes from. What is it like to die?  (Sometimes we hear of the brought back to life, out of body, light at the end of the tunnel experiences, but not the "OMG it was sooo painful, damn I have to go through that again?" ones).

I'll be re-absorbed into the cosmos and recycled somehow, I'm just made of atoms and their constituent parts so no soul or entity that is able to think will allow me to continue in any way shape or form.

I now feel quite blasé and nonchalant about the whole thing. Which reminds me of these two Python ditties.

http://www.thebards.net/music/lyrics/Always_Look_Bright_Side_Life.shtml

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Galaxy-Song-lyrics-Monty-Python/05B560513F0159E248256EB10006DCBC

And a great scientific analysis of the above courtesy of aunty (BBC) http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2163133

 I don't feel bleak or down about what will happen and I don't have a nihilistic view of the world I just accept it as it is.  I think of all those great epitaphs such as Spike Milligan's "I told you I was ill" and think that's the best way to go about it after all your not going to cheat death are you?

Ultimately, it's a subjective question and a matter of personal preference. Far be it from me to suggest that anyone should have kids who doesn't want to. Obviously, it is better that people who don't want to have kids do NOT do so! 

If you are already unconcerned about death, then I agree that having kids is unlikely to help and may, as you say, actually make you more anxious about dying and leaving your dependants in the lurch. I know I'm much more cautious since having children. However the question was concerning people who ARE concerned about death and its existential ramifications.

I tend to discard the claims of childless people when it comes to the pros and cons of having kids. Since they have never done it, they aren't really in a position to know what they are talking about. On the other hand, every person with kids was once without them. A better test would be to ask people who have had children if they regret it, and I know you will get a similarly high number of parents claiming that their lives have been greatly enhanced.

Just what consistutes a fulfilling life is rather open to debate and is always highly subjective. For me, it is, in part, about being part of something larger than myself that will survive my death. When I contemplate the size of the universe and the span of history, I feel that anything I personally think or feel or acheive within my life span is necessarily so insignificant as to vanish into total irrelevancy. The demands of my ego aren't such that I should be a big deal in the context of the universe, but I'd like to at least be able to find my life meaningful and impactful relative to my own frame of reference. So to that end, having children is an obvious way for me to make my life as significant as possible, at least in the eyes of me and my family if no one else, and to create the hope of my ever-more distilled legacy passing down through the ages and in some miniscule way being part of the places and times and events that I can only speculate about.

And another thing: I am the product of thousands of generations fighting tooth and nail and prevailing against all odds to get to be me. Whether I want to or not, I carry within my genetic code the supreme efforts of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Throwing that away by dying without offspring seems to me to a horrible waste of the very best of what makes us human; a crime in the same nature as, but many magnitudes more serious than, destroying great works of art. Who am I, in the limited context I occupy, with the transient worldview and scarce resources I possess, to decide that I am qualified to end this great endeavour of evolution and life?

Finally, having kids is about much more than finding fulfillment in your own life. If that's the only reason you have to do it, don't. The proper attitude to approach the decision to raise kids is, IMO, the desire to share your life and your love, unconditionally, selflessly and to the fullest extent of your ability, with a new family. That's something that's kind of just there within you or it isn't. In my case, it grew out of my wonderful experiences with my family growing up and from my marriage. 

Alright, I guess we're going to do this.

Dear me, don't do that! All I'm saying is that people who don't have kids lack the experience. This is self-evident, is it not? 

Actually, the analogy would be "you have to believe in Jesus to know what it is like to believe in Jesus." I can't argue with that. Can you?

That's fine, but I'm talking about a subjective experience.

LOL! And there's no confirmation bias in asking people who haven't had kids if they regret it? Especially if they are now too old or have been "fixed"? Of course everyone is going to justify their own decisions to themselves and to others. However we lack the resources to control for who is telling us the objective truth and who is lying about their feelings to cover for a perceived mistake. So we can either agree to take everyone's testimony as unbiased, or we can agree that all testimony in this regard is biased and throw it out. I'm fine either way.

And I know lots of singles who desperately want kids. I'll admit that I don't know too many people who have decided not to have kids and regretted it, but I don't have much of a sample to draw from because I only know two couples who fit this description.

Out of all the parents I know, not one would make this statement. You and I must be hanging with pretty different crowds.

We're also genetically programmed to want to have kids in the first place. Women more than men, of course.

Perhaps the difference in our groups is that I don't know one couple who got pregnant by accident. All my friends were married first and made a mutual decision to have children. I do know some husbands who were browbeat into having kids by their wives and, unsurprisingly, their marriages and their relationships with the children are strained. I have said and I maintain that people who do not want to have kids, even if they get pregnant by accident, should not have kids. However, I hope you will take my point that most people who have freely chosen to have kids do not regret it and think that it was a great choice.

Not completely incapable. I also chose not to have kids for many years. At least I have been in the same shoes as childless people, and they have never remotely been anywhere near my shoes. However, I was always open to the possibility that I might have kids someday so yes, my perspective does differ from someone who has decided not to reproduce ever.  

Almost always cases of people having kids by accident or for very fucked up reasons or who are now bitter because they had kids and their other circumstances changed. 

It isn't an argument from nature, though there is an argument from nature to be made here. It is an argument from intrinsic worth and the Golden Rule. Our accumulated genetic history is the crowning achievement of the Herculean efforts of millions of people over millions of years. If anything has value, it does, and its value exceeds that of your own life and anything else except the lives of other people. IMO, destroying such a precious legacy by allowing it to end is a moral wrong in itself. Plus, it is a slap in the face to the millions who sacrificed significant proportions of their lives' resources to give you the chance to live and pass on the legacy. Had you made their decision, you would not want you to make the decision you have taken. Given the tremendous gift they have bequeathed, this is a pretty egregious violation of reciprocity, though one could argue that only the relatives that are still alive really count.

Of course, we have to balance our responsibilities with our freedoms, so a person could certainly decide that none of this stuff is as important as his right to determine his own path. My response would be that you better have a pretty awesome path in mind in order to offset the immense value that has already been invested in you. 

The argument from nature is that our shared, evolved human nature IS our universal stick to measure right and wrong. We have no problem pointing to our innate sense of empathy as a valid foundation for the rule that we should not unnecessarily cause suffering; why shouldn't we point to our innate drive to procreate as evidence that doing so is a meaningful and proper activity for people to engage in? This wouldn't suggest that NOT procreating is somehow wrong, only that, by not procreating, you simply aren't doing as much good as you could. Lot's of people are fine with that and so am I...after all, I don't do all the good I could. 

At the end of your life, every reason that you have for not having kids goes to the grave with you. Unless you achieved some great work of creativity that will survive your death, whatever good times you had or great stuff you did or money you made will simply diffuse into the environment - gone. 

I suppose if you were very convinced that you were a person of tremendous evil and that you wouldn't want to inflict any aspect of yourself on future generations, you could make a pretty solid case for not having kids. Otherwise, I'm curious to hear what you consider to be good reasons for not having kids.

Do tell. I love my kids without condition and without reference to my own needs.

So the possibility of failure justifies any refusal to try? This is just cowardice.

Well, that is certainly silly. Personally, I'm glad my descendents won't have to compete against your own for needed resources.

On a more serious note, I'll say that I am irritated with you for not procreating, Hamby. There are so many idiots out there (most of them theists!) filling up the world with progeny that will only make things worse. There you are, a smart guy with lots to offer yet you deny the future the benefit of your gifts! Come on, Hamby, get with the program!  

I think any culture that doesn't aggressively promote the idea of childrearing is doomed, for rather obvious reasons. I don't think such a nihilistic stance makes sense for cultures any more than it makes sense for people.  

The answer to dysfunctional families is not necessarily to have less families. Access to birth control, more enlightened attitudes about sex, marriage and family planning, access to abortion, better mental health, more social supports, labour reform, more access to daycare: these are all measures that could allow society to have its families and make them succeed, too. Getting rid of religion would also help.  

Yes, there is probably little profit in pursuing this further. As I said, the core issues are all subjective and therefore not really a matter of right or wrong anyway.  

But I do have a vested interest in the future of society...the society that my descendents will inhabit. I think it is highly rational to be concerned about that and to prefer that my descendents inhabit that future with people like you instead of the spawn of a billion evangelicals who are breeding like bacteria.

Of course not! If I thought your position was as good as mine, I would have made the same decision as you and spared myself the expense and effort of having children. I do think I am right, which carries the necessary bias that all conflicting opinions are wrong and therefore not as worthwhile as mine.

Let's not forget that I've said many times that, IMO, people who don't want kids shouldn't have them. Since you don't want kids and aren't having them we are, in that respect, in perfect agreement. 

Ya, let's drop it.