To beleive in immortality is to fear death.

Extend arguments from R1: Belief in immortality is belief that death of consciousness does not exist and is not something that would inspire fear. By agreeing that black holes have no effect on humans and that is why we don't fear them, you agree that humans do not fear what does not affect them. This proves my point. You claim my example holds no sway because death is "absolute" fact. I do not concede that death has been proven; at least not in the context you are using the word- as an utter cessation of awareness. I will expand upon this later. Your claim "To contradict something…proven fact and happens every day with a concept that is unproven is still denial'. Since you haven't proven death, only stated it is proven, this has no bearing. Your rebuttal of my second allegory: Recall you admitted that, for the most part we don't fear black holes because they don't affect us. So, you agree we don't fear what does not affect us. So, if we fear something then it affects us. For it to affect us we must first believe it is real. Fear is equal to belief. A fear of immortality is a belief in immortality. "Fear of immortality is not the subject at hand, fear of death is" Wrong: The subject at hand is belief in immortality. Your stance is that this is related to fear of death You claim that survival is the primary function of the body without supporting this with facts. A starving pregnant woman who remains pregnant proves that the biological imperative of the female is to reproduce, not to survive, since survival would be more likely w/out the fetus. "If you believe the psycho is immortal …than if the psycho was hurting you … you would be thinking "I am immortal" I clearly said: "The resolution does not require that one believe in his or her own immortality" The resolution is that all belief in immortality is a fear of death. This allegory is used to describe a situation in which I would believe in immortality for someone else (Psycho), and that in this situation I would not WANT immortality to be real. This shows that the root of the belief is fear that it is true and that it will lead to pain. I am alleging here that it is possible that to believe in immortality is to fear pain, not death, thereby refuting the resolution. I have tried to find something that gives any indication that pain is in fact ONLY a response that applies to proximity to death. http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca... is the closest thing I could find, and all it really says is that pain is necessary to survival, that pain is a perception of damage, even when none occurs, and HURT IS NOT THE SAME AS HARM. (Harm can lead to death, hurt can not) You state: death is a proven and inevitable fact. 1. Death, as you are using the word (the total cessation of life) has not been proven true. The truth is ‘now, on this world, the physical body will cease being animated at some point and that it will begin the process of rotting.' That is all that has been PROVEN true. 2. Considering the # of scientific advances made every year, at some point it could be possible to conquer all causes of physical death. I doubt this, but, unless it is impossible, death is not inevitable. You clearly state that death is proven and that immortality is the concept. You have not proven souls a) do not exist OR b) die at the same time as the body; either would make death final and complete. Therefore in the context of spiritual immortality, you have not proven that death of the physical shell is even related to death You state: Belief in immortality is to be in denial. Christians believe Jesus said, "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak (Matthew 26:41)" this is an illustration that to believers the soul and the body are fundamentally different things- even in life. A belief in spiritual life does not invalidate a belief in physical life. Those with this belief typically won't deny the physical death of the body; rather the COMPLETENESS of death as it pertains to spiritual consciousness is in doubt, you will need to show that death is in fact complete loss of all awareness. In my first round I showed how a true belief that one will live forever, if only spiritually, requires one to have confidence in endless existence. That confidence means that, in THE MIND OF THE BELIEVER, death does not apply. You countered by stating that death applies to all. However you failed in three ways with this rebuttal: 1. You failed to show how the FACT of death applying had anything to do with the BELIEF that death does not apply (this is in addition to failing to prove true death occurs) 2.**Belief in something that could not possibly be would be insanity, and would not fall under the purview of the argument as insanity is not subject to any standards of logic. In other words, your argument opens the ground for the rebuttal that: to believe in immortality is to be insane. THIS DIRECTLY REFUTES THE RESOLUTION. This should end the debate. ** 3. You failed to prove that death actually did apply to all. In your rebuttal to my stance: fearing a psycho's unwillingness to stay dead. I had already shown that most will not fear what they do not believe will effect them, with the black hole statement. Even if it is momentary, the fear that death did not apply to the psycho would be due to a belief in same as follows: We do not fear what we do not believe in ---> To fear is to believe ---> To fear that psycho won't stay dead is to believe that he won't stay dead ---> The fear that he won't die is due to the belief he won't die-->The belief he won't die is tied to the fear of him living--->Fear of his immortality is fear of his life. I have shown: 1. Even physical death has not proven to be inevitable at all points in time 2. The completeness of death has not been proven 3. Physical death does not disprove the concept of a spiritual life and death 4. Spiritual death has not been proven 5. Fear and belief are fundamentally linked 6. Pain is not fundamentally linked to harm or death 7. Belief in immortality can be insanity or fear of pain. Thank you, Camelunfiltered, for taking the time to read through this posting. Any grammatical errors are due to the original rebuttal being 11,000 characters in length and needing to have so many characters removed.