In a discussion with a group of eighteen men I proclaimed, it was more than I just said, “I am comfortable with dying and just becoming a scattered random bunch of individual atoms that are part of the physical universe, without my individual identity.” This was in response to some others there, who claimed they were inhabited by a spirit that will live eternally. I gently asked for any verification of their statements and was told it was true because their faith in the Bible meant it was true.
They, of course, asked for my proofs and I said that everything I have ever observed followed the pattern after dying of reverting to nonliving matter. A dead leaf or squirrel planted in my garden will help the new plants grow better, but that plant isn’t a squirrel. Some of the new plants might create nuts which the squirrels do eat but this new squirrel will be a totally different individual. They will have some crossover DNA in their common ancestry but their life experience is unique.
I don’t see my body being any different from a squirrel’s in this dying, becoming organic matter enriching the soil and being reborn as a plant and then possibly as a mammal. I am like a tiny leaf on the vast tree of life and while I am a living part of that tree I will treat all of it with love and respect because it is all part of me and I a part of it. When the time comes for me to die it will be like a leaf, having fulfilled its purpose of nourishing the tree, it breaks off and falls away to nonliving oblivion.
Back in the ground my atoms can perform other functions to help a new tree to grow, but my individuality will be gone forever. I’m comfortable with that.
Probaway - Life Hacks 
When discussing metaphysical articles of faith there are no valid answers – only questions. Whether we are souls who inhabit a physical body or nothing more than random atoms is a good philosophical question but there can be no answers or proofs. The metaphysical, by definition, lies beyond knowledge and understanding where there are no proofs nor any scientific answers. Applying scientific reasoning to metaphysical questions is futile because proofs can only be based on what we know or can know within physical domains. One should never debate an article of faith which is based in the metaphysical realm. By definition, articles of faith transcend knowledge. One either believes it or not. It is pointless to debate metaphysical questions for there will never be any proof.
One can only ask metaphysical questions without any expectation of answers. Does god exist? Does the soul exist? Are there unknowable truths? Are there unknowable truths that lie beyond reason and science? Who is wise enough to say? One may find answers to questions about physical reality using science but it is folly to expect to find answers in an infinite metaphysical domain that exists only within the human mind and perhaps the human soul.
How could one ever hope to scientifically prove the metaphysical property of love? Or should we rather accept that love, like the human soul, requires an article of faith that requires no proof. One either believes that they are loved or not. Debating, and reasoning for proof to metaphysical questions, indicates both a lack of understanding and wisdom.
The goal of that post was to state my feelings, largely untestable beliefs, that I am comfortable with all that is in the Universe. After consideration of that idea many years ago, I decided that even poison oak and mosquitoes were welcome in my world, even though they have caused me considerable personal discomfort. My problem with unconstrained faith is that many people I encounter give themselves free rein to postulate the most absurd ideas and then guide their real-world behavior on self-destructive ideas.