Why do you believe, advocates/skeptics?

As for death anxiety, I went through that pretty strongly during my late teens, it's just what happens. Like I said in my original post, I started on the materialist side so I thought of thinking about an afterlife as a weakness, better to have the stiff upper lip and face death with some strength and not believe in silly immortality that's just for cowards. I still believe that in a way, I think, in a rare bit of wisdom from Michael Shermer, people should live like there is no afterlife. Because, really, we don't live in the afterlife, we live right here, ain't gonna be taxes or the next videogame console in whatever comes after, so have to live your life in a fulfilling and satisfying way and make peace with yourself as is, and then if there's an afterlife it's a bonus.

That's why I don't fault atheists for saying that life has meaning without an afterlife, because it does, shouldn't bank on what comes next and rely on that.

There's a matter of perspective in considering these ideas. I really dislike the term 'afterlife', as I've probably explained more than once on these or other forums.

For me there is only life. The rather silly prefix 'after' betrays a certain perspective, a bit like viewing the Earth as the centre of the Universe about which the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, the entire galaxy, and indeed countless other galaxies too, rotate. All of them must revolve around us. Well, nowadays we recognise that of these, only one, our Moon, actually revolves around us. As for the rest, we are just a small speck in a much larger whole, and it is we who are revolving around something else. Even the Sun, immense though it is, is not the centre, but just one more part which revolves around something else, in this case the galactic centre. And so it goes on.

As i said, I consider there is only life. We might also say there is only NOW, this very moment. That's all there is. So yes, we have to focus on this life and find our way within it, each of us in our own way. But it isn't because the human life is or isn't all there is, that is a distraction. The reason we should focus on this human life is because this is where we find ourselves right now.

What came before this moment, and what follows? We have words for those: yesterday and tomorrow. But those are forever out of reach. The  reason I immensely dislike the term 'afterlife' is because it places tomorrow as somehow different to today. And fails to mention yesterday at all. To me, it is too narrow a perspective.

We're recognising that the mind can escape the confines of the skull, in both time and space, for example we might have a telepathic contact with a loved one in some crisis situation somewhere many miles away. We may also have precognition, whether waking or in dreams, of the future. Our consciousness is not confined in time and space. This is the beginning of understanding that we ourselves have no beginning and no end.

There's a matter of perspective in considering these ideas. I really dislike the term 'afterlife', as I've probably explained more than once on these or other forums.
...................................
What came before this moment, and what follows? We have words for those: yesterday and tomorrow. But those are forever out of reach. The  reason I immensely dislike the term 'afterlife' is because it places tomorrow as somehow different to today. And fails to mention yesterday at all. To me, it is too narrow a perspective.

We're recognising that the mind can escape the confines of the skull, in both time and space, for example we might have a telepathic contact with a loved one in some crisis situation somewhere many miles away. We may also have precognition, whether waking or in dreams, of the future. Our consciousness is not confined in time and space. This is the beginning of understanding that we ourselves have no beginning and no end.

An interesting point of view. Where I come from is being a believer in an objective external world that is subject to linear time and determinism in macro-physical (non-quantum-mechanical) interactions. Also, a spiritual world or realm interacting with the physical in various designed ways but not subject to physical space and time. This spiritual realm is the natural home of the human spirit, and in which there also is linear time (as experienced subjectively in consciousness) and in which the time dimension must be shared between different spirits. Human consciousness has to be linked in some way to linear time, or events in consciousness would not logically follow each other in successions of thoughts and awarenesses. Time is change. Another kind of life follows this physical one as events occurring in a series one after the other in subjective consciousness - hence the term "afterlife".

That we ultimately have no end I would have no argument with, but no beginning is something else. Human consciousness contains a very large amount of complex specified information which must include unique information defining and specifying the nature of each particular soul. We know from Earth experience that the only source of large amounts of complex specified information is conscious intelligence. It does not come into being from absolutely nothing. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing. So the human spirit must have had a beginning, a "designer" of some sort.

It occurs to me that maybe this topic is off-topic and needs to have a separate thread.

An interesting point of view. Where I come from is being a believer in an objective external world that is subject to linear time and determinism in macro-physical (non-quantum-mechanical) interactions. Also, a spiritual world or realm interacting with the physical in various designed ways but not subject to physical space and time. This spiritual realm is the natural home of the human spirit, and in which there also is linear time (as experienced subjectively in consciousness) and in which the time dimension must be shared between different spirits. Human consciousness has to be linked in some way to linear time, or events in consciousness would not logically follow each other in successions of thoughts and awarenesses. Time is change. Another kind of life follows this physical one as events occurring in a series one after the other in subjective consciousness - hence the term "afterlife".

That we ultimately have no end I would have no argument with, but no beginning is something else. Human consciousness contains a very large amount of complex specified information which must include unique information defining and specifying the nature of each particular soul. We know from Earth experience that the only source of large amounts of complex specified information is conscious intelligence. It does not come into being from absolutely nothing. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing. So the human spirit must have had a beginning, a "designer" of some sort.

It occurs to me that maybe this topic is off-topic and needs to have a separate thread.

In invoking a designer, does your designer have a beginning or an end?

An interesting point of view. Where I come from is being a believer in an objective external world that is subject to linear time and determinism in macro-physical (non-quantum-mechanical) interactions. Also, a spiritual world or realm interacting with the physical in various designed ways but not subject to physical space and time. This spiritual realm is the natural home of the human spirit, and in which there also is linear time (as experienced subjectively in consciousness) and in which the time dimension must be shared between different spirits. Human consciousness has to be linked in some way to linear time, or events in consciousness would not logically follow each other in successions of thoughts and awarenesses. Time is change. Another kind of life follows this physical one as events occurring in a series one after the other in subjective consciousness - hence the term "afterlife".

That we ultimately have no end I would have no argument with, but no beginning is something else. Human consciousness contains a very large amount of complex specified information which must include unique information defining and specifying the nature of each particular soul. We know from Earth experience that the only source of large amounts of complex specified information is conscious intelligence. It does not come into being from absolutely nothing. Nothing comes from absolutely nothing. So the human spirit must have had a beginning, a "designer" of some sort.

It occurs to me that maybe this topic is off-topic and needs to have a separate thread.

I agree with a lot of that but not the assumption about time or that 'spirit' (whatever 'that' is or whatever we are) must have a beginning. I think "beginnings" and "endings" are naturally programmed into is so permanently,  that it's almost impossible to conceive of a universe that may have always existed. I personally suspect it has and that we are participating in something that never began and cannot end.

When you run that through your thought processes, it doesn't make sense, though, I agree.

I agree with a lot of that but not the assumption about time or that 'spirit' (whatever 'that' is or whatever we are) must have a beginning. I think "beginnings" and "endings" are naturally programmed into is so permanently,  that it's almost impossible to conceive of a universe that may have always existed. I personally suspect it has and that we are participating in something that never began and cannot end.

When you run that through your thought processes, it doesn't make sense, though, I agree.

I can't make sense of it either way.  Both having a beginning from nothing and not having any beginning seem impossible.

In invoking a designer, does your designer have a beginning or an end?

It depends on whether our designer is just the proximate cause or is the ultimate cause. The conventional theological view is that the First Cause is the ultimate uncaused Cause, outside any possible human understanding, outside even logic. This designer would have no beginning and no end. Or our designer(s) could be merely the proximate cause, a very (perhaps inconceivably) powerful being or beings that nevertheless themselves had some sort of creative origin from the First Cause above. Either option would avoid an infinite regress of proximate causes or designers.  

The only other option available to the human mind is that there actually was no beginning. The problem with this is the humanly inconceivable concomitant of this that a very large complex intricate structure constituting a human soul never had a designer. In our consensus reality intricate machines combined with works of art absolutely had a designer, full stop. This is like Paley's watch. If you find an intricate device with very many finely interacting parts (a watch), the only plausible conclusion is that it was designed and constructed by a conscious intelligent being. It did not come together from nothing, or for that matter from random unintelligent forces. 

This is like the sci-fi time travel paradox where the time traveler invents a time machine and transports the blueprints, specifications and construction instructions for the incandescent light bulb back in time to 1820 or so. He introduces this invention before it was invented by Thomas Edison. Thereafter, in that reality there would exist a design without a designer, and reality would include the circumstance that Edison never bothered to invent the light bulb, and the time traveler never went back in time. But the time traveler did go back in time and introduced the light bulb invented by Edison. So we would be well justified to declare this scenario including the invention of a time machine to be self contradictory and logically impossible, and therefore in fact impossible, totally an artifact of human imagination. My view would be that similar reasoning would lead to the same conclusion with regard to the human soul never having had a beginning.

I agree with a lot of that but not the assumption about time or that 'spirit' (whatever 'that' is or whatever we are) must have a beginning. I think "beginnings" and "endings" are naturally programmed into is so permanently,  that it's almost impossible to conceive of a universe that may have always existed. I personally suspect it has and that we are participating in something that never began and cannot end.

When you run that through your thought processes, it doesn't make sense, though, I agree.

See my response to Typoz. Not that I am satisfied with it.

I've always had a brain freeze when it comes to attempting to understand time. Various authorities maintain that time is an illusion:

Quote from this article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04558-7

So what does Rovelli think is really going on? He posits that reality is just a complex network of events onto which we project sequences of past, present and future.

And Einstein said the following:

People like us who believe in physics know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Time, in other words, he said, is an illusion. 

In the Hindu religion, time is considered (along with space) to be Maya (illusion).

Seth (through Jane Roberts) explains the illusion (or "camouflage"):

The settings in your physical environment…the physical aspects of life as you know it, are all camouflages.

The brain is a camouflage pattern. It takes up space. It exists in time. The mind takes up no space, it does not have its basic existence in time. The reality of the inner universe does not take up space, nor does it have its basic existence in time. Your camouflage universe, on the other hand, takes up space and has an existence in time, but it is not the real and basic universe, any more than the brain is the mind.

Elsewhere, Seth maintains that we experience events and organise them according to our perception of time. This seems remarkably close to the quote from the Nature article, above (although I guess the guy in the Nature article would be horrified to see his theory compared to the words of a channelled entity). Here are some Seth quotes but I didn't find the specific quote I was looking for about the organisation of events.

On a subconscious level, you react to many events that have not yet occurred as far as your ego's awareness is concerned.

Such reactions are carefully screened out and not admitted to consciousness. The ego finds such instances distracting and annoying, and when forced to admit their validity, will resort to the most far fetched rationalizations to explain them.

No event is predestined. Any given event can be changed not only before and during but after its occurrence.

The individual is hardly at the mercy of past events, for he changes them constantly. He is hardly at the mercy of future events, for he changes these not only before but after their happening. An individuals future actions are not dependent upon a concrete finished past, for such a past never existed.

The point I'm trying to make is that we don't understand time. We experience time so it is real to us but is it real in an absolute sense? If we could accept that time is an illusion then it should not be so difficult to accept that God/the creator/All that Is must be uncreated. If I think of eternity I usually decide that eternity proves that time is an illusion because there is no beginning and no end. If there is no start or end point, then there cannot be anything relative to those points which don't exist. So you can't measure time without a reference point - I gather this is what Einstein was saying.

Is time essential to the concept of justice?

The point I'm trying to make is that we don't understand time. We experience time so it is real to us but is it real in an absolute sense? If we could accept that time is an illusion then it should not be so difficult to accept that God/the creator/All that Is must be uncreated. If I think of eternity I usually decide that eternity proves that time is an illusion because there is no beginning and no end. If there is no start or end point, then there cannot be anything relative to those points which don't exist. So you can't measure time without a reference point - I gather this is what Einstein was saying.

I don't think time is an illusion, but at the same time we also experience time in our unique human way. Imagine if there were no day night cycles. Everything was always bright. Imagine how much different just THAT would be to your concept of time. Remember even that years and days are just how our planets revolves, and how often it swings around a star. They're just abstract things used for measurement. A real timelessness of some kind of afterlife would be so smack bang removed from what we have now you wouldn't even be able to grasp it.