> ok, so you admit that death is the only guarantee in this lifetime? yes. > and it would logically follot that the top priority of every human being should be the study of death and the after-life not really no? i guess its an interesting topic to study, but there isn't very much to study with i'd say trying to invent general live extention technologies might be a just as reasonable topic of study or creating a legacy to immortalize yourself through your actions and decendants or... > whould you go so far as to say there's no reason to believe in nothing? that if you're going to study the various religions, that you might as well pick one? that does not make sense to me. what do religions have to do with anything? just because they may contain life-after-death narratives to explain the world, why would choosing one, together with all the addendum of that religion like god(s), the creation myth of that religion, etc, be a topic of interest? the only interesting part with regards to the life-after-death question are the differing believes of past humans as to what comes after death, to create an assortment of possibilities, (reincarnation, paradies, nothingness, etc) > ok then, do the research, figure out which religion is most likely to be true, and join that religion. i happen to notice christianity is a pretty good one. again, researching the religions themselfes is at best tangentially related to figuring out life-after-death. it is just as valid as trying to figure out all possible alternatives of what may happen after death on your own, and just picking one, aka creating your own religion no religion is superior to any other with regards of their claims of "truthfulness", at least to my knowledge no religion poses hypothesis that can provide evidence of the correctness of the hypothesis through reproduceable experiments designed to test that hypothesis under multi-factor-control there aren't even generalized hypothesis that can be experimentally tested
Germany