instantaneous annihilation vs continuity of consciousness

now, from the perspective of these ancient buddhist and jain ascetics, for whom life was, ultimately speaking, deeply marred by suffering, due to the impermanence of all things, the inevitable wearing down, decay, death, and disappearance of all we hold near and dear, the only "wishful thinkers" were the materialists who assumed death to be instantaneous annihilation, because they assumed that no matter how they lived, no matter what they did, they were simply obliterated by death, thus rendering all such things as spiritual discipline meaningless and pointless, elevating nihilistic hedonism to the supreme position.

to these ancient ascetics, the realistic way of thinking was the theory of rebirth, the cycle of births and deaths within samsara, and the idea of attaining liberation therefrom by uprooting all craving for pleasure and continued existence, aspiring to the great and final extinction of nirvana.

suppose that the scientific theory is true; well, do we really need to know it? if it's automatic annihilation, what does it matter how we lived, what we believed, except that our beliefs may preclude us from the hedonistic indulgences embraced by scientific nihilists? we gain nothing from believing in instantaneous annihilation. on the other hand, if we side with the theory of rebirth, we gain a far reaching outlook into the future, realizing that if we do not do something soon, we will be automatically recycled, reborn, and remain trapped within life, which is suffering. we gain a view to attaining liberation and freedom, we perceive a way, outlined by the buddhas, for attaining nirvana via a strict life of discipline and wisdom.

scientists like richard dawkins love to debate christians, love to refute their naive doctrines, but shy away from even approaching the perspective of ancient jains and buddhists. could it be that they would not know how to approach the debate, since it is not wishful thinking on the part of buddhists, but realistic thinking, and that it exposes the materialistic bias as being wishful thinking all along? would a scientist like richard dawkins, apparently in love with the mysteries of science, prefer to be reborn and live again, rather than attain the extinction he assumes is instantaneous with his death?

>be me
>be born
>advanced child speech and life in general is easy
>didthisb4.jpeg
>have depression because humans suck and I don't belong
>waiting for meat sack of me to die so I can go to next meat sack/ or new place
I just believe there is more and if I do get instantly annihilated I won't be made about it cuz I won't exist

>>17889593
>most scientists of today
source

>>17889695
Lol basically this. Its inherent to us to want to live as long as possible to continue our species onward so we want to believe that we'll live forever, even after we die, which is actually an insane thing to believe as there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing.

The only way to take this to prove that you're a mentally healthy individual is that it is unknowable, and if we are 'instantly annihilated' its whatever because we won't exist to care about it.

tl;dr what comes after death is unknowable so fuck shit up while you're alive