Why there is belief in an afterlife

It seems to me whatever philosophy or religion one is drawn to there is the same underlying theme. Reward. I know not of any religion or philosophy that does not promise the reward of an afterlife in some form or other.

I was discussing the question of life after death with a minister and during his conversation I realised that this was something I did not particularly strive for or want. When I die and go to the grave, why not leave it at that. I don’t want any surviving consciousness, or any communications with the dead. Death is like snuffing out a candle. The light is extinguished. Surprisingly, he agreed with me, (I suppose having to deal with people 24/7 would do that to him, LOL). However, I do want to be basically a ‘good’ person while I am alive and not for the reason of a reward of an afterlife. Frankly, to live ‘forever’ has no appeal for me.

So, if a person does not want this promise of an afterlife, do they have to take it? I don’t see anywhere in the Scriptures where this can be arranged, unless of course you choose not to believe, which poses a problem for me.

There are a lot of assholes in the world. Some of them are Christians. Actually, one of them is me, so I guess I won’t be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven.

Not so much reward, as consequence.
Afterlife is the result of the idea that one should still care for the consequences of ones actions that happen beyond ones death.

Weak people will convince themselves that they need to do as little as possible to attain this - a risk free life will lead to their reward, that is how they live, and that is how they face death.

Strong people convince themselves that they need to do more than they really humanly could be expected to do.
They know that the consequences of their actions live on, that their name wil be immortal. That is all they care about, they identify truly with their values and not with their ego which will die, unlike the consequences to their actions.

Strong people know what is solid, basically. Their afterlife is the sort of afterlife that the Jews have, which is the state of Israel, all Earthly.

Sounds degenerate to me.
Do you make your decisions based on what is unlikely or based on what is likely?

We are genetically programmed to believe in futures.

You mean scary.

You mean do I take risks, where homely shut-ins don’t?
Yes. All men do. Even boys.
I don’t know what you are.

No, I mean degenerate.

Making decisions based on what is unlikely is gambling.
Gambling isn’t courage, gambling is foolishness.
You’re confusing the two.

Sure, Maggie.

Some people stake bets on values, no matter how unlikely they seem to be. Other people simple coast through life following the “safe” path, never “gambling” on anything because they’re too afraid of losing.

In nature, males take risks, females are risk averse.
Largely because they are preparing for the huge risk of childbirth.

You are a suicidal retard who does not know how to distinguish between courage and recklessness.
Courage does not mean absence of caution.
Without caution, no goal can be attained.
Without caution, a father cannot save his child by risking his life.
Without caution, a stuntman cannot perform his stunts.
Without caution, no soldier can complete his mission.
Without caution, you cannot even posture that you’re courageous.
Without caution, you do nothing but set yourself up for failure.
There is no courage in dismissing reality.
Only comfort. And a pretense that you’re courageous.

The point is to attain your goals.
And in order to do that, you need to be realistic, which means, you need to wisely choose your goals, based on what you can do and not merely based on what you want to do.
Otherwise, if you choose based on what is unrealistic, the only thing you’re going to do is make a fool out of yourself.
Which is what you’re already doing.

The approach to life that you describe that can simply be referred to as gambling is for losers who want to “get rich overnight”. Basically, these are people who want to get out of their skin, which they find to be very tight, as soon as possible. If you think that greatness is born through sheer luck and not through laborious and meticuluous process that spans over many generations then . . . what does that say about you and Mr. Mixed Cross’ philosophy?

Fixed wrote:

.

Bad childbirth stories can overshadow the good ones and this often produces a fearful reaction in others. A lot depends on pain tolerance and anxiousness, as to why some women deliver easier than others, we just don’t hear about it as often.

Its the ground to most psychology. Only psychology of pure genius can be separate of this primordial female power.

The quintessential thing that is too weighty to speak out in general context.
Like on the masculine side what is common knowledge in military or finance will never be known to the public even without secrecy being enforced - the pubic doesn’t want to know. It makes life more serious and involved.

Haha.

So you see all risk-taking as gambling on the Lotto?

Fair enough. I won’t even bother mentioning what that says about you.

This sex/gender difference also manifests itself genetically in the fact that males have much more variability of IQ whereas women tend to cluster around the mean IQ. Nature genetically experiments with males in a way it doesn’t with females.

You would do well to avoid vague terms such as “risk-taking” if you want to faciliate successful communication.
There is a difference between a father trading his life in order to save his child (which you can call risk-taking if you will) and a moron who denies reality and sides with a plan that is unlikely to succeed (which you can call risk-taking just as well.)
You and your friend are reality deniers i.e. you belong to the second group of risk-takers.

Let me remind you what your friend said:

Basically, he’s telling you that you should set for yourself unrealistically high goals.
Because otherwise, he believes, you can’t become anything great.
And he calls it risk-taking and compares it to what, say, soldiers do for their people.

Soldiers don’t set unrealistically high goals.
They don’t suffer from self-hatred and megalomania.
They do what is realistic, i.e. safe, in order to achieve their ends – protect their people.
Even if that means trading their lives.

Soldiers must be realistic – they must follow the safe, tried and proven, path – if they want to be successful.
In other words, if they want to attain their goals – protect their people.
Without that, they can never be successful.

Neither you nor your friend have anything close to what soldiers have.
You are average braggarts who brag about imaginary possessions, abilities and success.

You are self-hating, over-compensating, morons.
You can’t stand the reality of your situation.
You have to blindly hope that you will become something way beyond your ability.
And that’s why your friend thinks you can never become anything great without aiming for greatness.
Because it’s true: if he were to accept reality of his situation as it is he would have to accept that he would never become anything great.
The only thing he does not realize is that strong desire and motivation won’t help him either.

Hahaha.

All I can really manage is to laugh at this. It requires much more misanthropy in me to assume you’re being serious, rather than merely trolling.

Ok, a bit of fun, then.

At least the American pragmatists were useful. What do you suppose is the utility of English pragmatism? Ever wonder from where the true motive of “utilitarianism” comes? Even the theory itself is couched in petty, inhuman moralizing.

There is practical action, and then there is practical impracticality. We all know which of those you prefer.

There is nothing more truly pragmatic than taking risks for values, positing High Values as supreme law over mere circumstance, convenience, habit, or laziness. Life itself is nothing less than value-positing, the gradual systematizing of risk taking and all that it impies… and requires.

Absolutely - Hobbes and Locke are the absolute bitches of philosophy. Outspoken “subs”.

American pragmatists lived under a mutable regime guided by letters, reason. Their praxis consisted of working with these letters so as to secure that rule stayed mutable and standards stayed fixed.
In England the opposite - standards mutable so as for regime to stay fixed. This produces the quasi-standards of “polite society” which must stand in for aristocracy, which is always lacking in pragmatic company.

The mistake is made when pragmatism becomes an end. Praxis is of course a means. Protestantism is the worst of those mistakes. It is what killed god, as religion can not be pragmatic for the sake of being pragmatic and still relate to God, the miracle-bringer.

Once again, a German invention. These people just like making life as hard as possible.