hedonism is a selfish way of life, even though your existence may end when you die and even if there is no afterlife, the life of others will continue, and the selfishness of hedonism may adversely affect those who are still around after you die, so with respect to the happiness and wellbeing of others, hedonism is not logically or morally sustainable

Well in my own view I believe pleasure to be the temporary satisfaction of a desire. Pain would be having a desire and not being able to satisfy it - ie the Plato/Schopenhauer idea - pleasure and pain are just the two sides of the same coin. I wouldn't count things like beauty and love as pleasures in this sense. IMO the most profound goal is desirelessness - no pleasure, no pain... but that is just my own (religious) opinion. So i think hedonism is a bad thing because if you spend your life in pursuit of pleasure, you are more than likely to end up living your life in a lot of pain.

Keep in mind that pleasure is not always the same as happiness. As stressed by Aristotle and Plato alike, pleasure is something that is acceptable to strive for if the pleasure leads to happiness. For instance the pleasure achieved from illicit drugs may not be a proper form of pleasure because of the effects thereafter which revoke us from our happiness. If you do believe that life should be spent looking for "happiness" you should look to please yourself with pleasures that end with happiness such as; Friendship, learning, spiritual praise, etc.

I don't think that the example of illicit drugs is going to work as a proof that happiness is more than pleasure. In the case of some drugs, the long term effects cause pain, and not liking that is still purely in the realm of hedonism. And as for learning and friendship, those bring pleasure, and were recommended by the hedonist Epicurus. With Epicurus, he recognized the fact that the immediate pleasure and pain are not the only considerations, but the long term pleasure and pain are also quite important for a hedonist to consider. So Epicurus recommended a lifestyle that is almost the opposite of what the English word "epicurean" means (there are historical reasons for this, as the Christians of the Dark Ages burned as many of his books as they could get their hands on, and misrepresented him, as they did not want people to be Epicureans, and wanted them to be Christians of the type of which they approved; they were so successful in misrepresenting Epicurus, that they succeeded in getting the word "epicurean" to mean what it does today).

So what exactly should it have meant according to Epicurus and what does it mean today?:listening:

epicurean   
-adjective

1. fond of or adapted to luxury or indulgence in sensual pleasures; having luxurious tastes or habits, esp. in eating and drinking.
   
   
2. fit for an epicure: epicurean delicacies.
   
   
3. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Epicurus or Epicureanism.
   -noun
   
   
4. an epicure.
   
   
5. (initial capital letter) a disciple of Epicurus.
   

epicure 
-noun

1. a person who cultivates a refined taste, esp. in food and wine; connoisseur.
   
   
2. Archaic. a person dedicated to sensual enjoyment.
   

Now on the reverse side of this I would agree with the people who say that having lots of beliefs about the afterlife can also be tremendously unhealthy to say the least, but if we are just randomly evolved biological beings whose existence ends at death, and everything about everything can be explained by the natural sciences, then is there anyway to found convincing, solid, unimpeachable arguments for any other lifestyle other than hedonism?