I don't see it really as a matter of making a dichotomy. It's a matter of assessing probabilities. Is rebirth (or any other sort of post-mortem continuance) certain, probable, possible, impossible?
We make decisions, I think, based on these kinds of assessments. If I determine that rebirth is a likelihood, I'll make decisions that are different from those that I would make if I'm fairly certain that this life is it. There are also implications for some Buddhist doctrines. If conscious life comes to a halt at death, it's not really accurate to say that all experiences are painful -- as long as our endorphins are still kicking in, quite a lot of things may go on being delightful until our brain activity stops.
Also, if rebirth is merely possible (rather than probable or certain), then we have to weigh it against other possibilities, notably the claims of other religions. God might be real too.
The original post to which I replied seemed to be making a false dichotomy between acceptance or denial. In relation to your other point, I don't even know how we would begin to asses the probability of there being some form of life after death, although I'm not a mathematician. Certainly I can make assumptions, such as death being oblivion due to our minds being in someway dependent upon, or perhaps identical to, physical brain states (in whatever form). This, however, would be merely speculation on my part as I cannot actually know, which means that I may be deceiving myself, or I may be deceived by the data.
That being said I agree that we have to assess the likelihood of a theory being true, based on probability, all the time in everyday life. Political persuasions are the best example of this, I think. For example the up and coming European Union referendum in the UK is a decision that will be made on probability, since the outcome is unknown. This will also be partly (or in some cases completely) informed by a previously held belief in a certain political ideology. Of course in these cases we can claim to know which political position was "correct" based on previous experience, or after the fact via reflection. Sadly, with any discussion of life or no life after death we are not afforded the same luxury, which means that any position we take in terms of affirmation or negation is more likely to be based on personal persuasions than any demonstrable fact. As I mentioned previously, the only hope we may have of addressing the question is through the philosophy of mind and science. If it can be demonstrated that mental phenomena depend on brain states, or are independent of them, then we might be able to address the question of post mortem existence. Until then it seems that either position, that of acceptance or denial, is on rather shaky ground which is why I remain a skeptic in regards to such matters.
There are also implications for some Buddhist doctrines. If conscious life comes to a halt at death, it's not really accurate to say that all experiences are painful -- as long as our endorphins are still kicking in, quite a lot of things may go on being delightful until our brain activity stops.
I'm not so sure. To me the Dhamma has great value in any scenario.