Why Resign?

I meant that losing the game quicker would be disgraceful, isn't it?

Chess is more of a discipline than a game.  If you truly care the utmost about your improvement and the quality of your play, then resigning in clearly lost static positions is a MUST.  Escaping the punishment for your blunders will only increase the likelyhood of repeating similar blunders in the future. 
We learn by PAIN. Pain attaches to memory very effectively and is a great teacher. But if you are the other type of chess player who is concerned only with maximizing short term rating improvements, and you don't really care about the effectiveness of your time, then by all means, never resign!

Not resigning, in my opinion, appears to be inspired mostly by desperation, frustration, and self-denial.  If you blunder badly, you have earned the loss, don't cheat yourself out of learning by pain!  

I completely agree. We should go through a blunder so that we do not repeat it.

But why isn't the others agreeing with me?

Blundering makes us learn what we have done wrong and what was the better move, isn't it? 

So why resign?

@AntonioEsfandiari - We do learn by pain, but what we learn from it depends upon how we deal with it.  Resigning a game just because you made a blunder is like dropping out of a marathon at the first sign of distress.

If you have counterplay - that is, any trick, trap, or tactic which can let you off with a draw (or a win), then you should play on.  Recovering games you deserve to lose makes for exciting, high-pressure chess, and it builds skills (even during the many losses, not just during the occasional swindle) which can't be practiced under any other circumstances.

Also, if you're trying to become a better player, you shouldn't resign until YOU see the finish.  It may be a certainty that the player on the other side knows how to finish you off, but seeing him actually do it will enable you to better convert your own winning positions in the future.

Resigning is not pain, it's the avoidance of pain, which teaches nothing.

Good example - last week a youngster came in to the local club, played a much older and much more experienced player, was quickly down a piece, and eventually lost in about 35 moves.  Some might have this kid resign on the spot.  Afterwards, we went over the game, and found some very interesting defensive resources - even when he was down a bishop and two pawns.

The blunders certainly hurt, but with best play from that point on, the stronger side had to play very carefully to win.  There was even a stalemate trap at the end he had to avoid!  None of these insights are gained if the game isn't played out.

Mikhail Tal once ''resigned'' the game, but then his wife pointed out that his opponent actually lost on time.

Why not resign?

resigning is better than waiting for your opponent to run out of time

Well, what's the hurry? If u start a game, finish it.

Resigning is finishing it.  Not everyone has endless time to spend on lost games!

That's why I used the phrase 'your life'

Some person with a USCF [usually about 100 points higher than FIDE] of 1950 stalemated me up a queen and a bishop. I never resign OTB.

That's good.

But many of them resign, WHY?