An odd question that came to my mind.

[Entropist]

I agree with Schopenhauer when he wrote, "To desire immortality is to desire the perpetuation of a great mistake." So, answering the poll, I put "no"-- not because of the risk involved, but because at least two likely alternatives would involve my continued, eternal existence, something I would find loathsome. The notion of immortality is the biological drive for self-preservation projected into the metaphysical.

Even if there were such a thing as enjoying absolute pleasure (of whatever kind) or "happiness" forever or to suffer absolute misery and pain forever, or anything in between these two hypothetical extremes-- even still, none of these situations deal with existence itself.

While I don't agree with Buddhism, it is at least a bit more sophisticated than Christianity if only because it deals with this issue ontologically ("Existence = suffering"), whereas Christianity doesn't even question the notion that existence and self-preservation is "good." I find it amusing when people misunderstand the role of reincarnation in Buddhism-- this is not a reward, this is failure! The last thing a Buddhist would ever want is to be reincarnated. To exist is, for all intents and purposes, to be in hell. Nirvana is to cease to exist.

---

As an adult,I was taught: In the afterlife space and time cease to exist,there is only pure awareness.

Sounds like Samuel Beckett's The Unnamable. *shudder*