>You shouldn't enjoy yourself in this life! You should follow these rules to enjoy your eternal existence
But what if this life is actually all I have and I jip myself out of the only happiness achievable
>These books written and altered by men over the course of hundreds years who we don't know and who certainly never died say it's so!
How am I supposed to give up my enjoyment of life on a notion or possibility?
Other urls found in this thread:
blog.al.com
twitter.com
you know that restraining some of your urges is must have to attain happiness in this life, right?
also having hope for something beyond death helps too
>How am I supposed to give up my enjoyment of life on a notion or possibility?
Its called investment. You invest now so you can prosper in the future.
If you spend all the life trying to find pleasure and never invest in the future, you lose.
First prove there is a future after death and then you can start talking about investments.
Incoming bible citations!
First we have to define what dies. If its the body, then certainly the body reforms itself and reforms into plants/animal/etc. As a scientific fact, this is indisputable.
If what dies is not the body but the consciousness, then we'll have to prove such a consciousness exists in first place. We have no proof even if people believe it to be self-evident.
If what dies not not body or the consciousness but rather an immaterial soul, then again proof is needed. We have no proof for souls and it is certainly not self-evident.
So what else is there? The certain scientific proof is simply the assumption of the body that dies. In this case, law of conservation of mass applies and thus, "future after death" is proven.
>Is Apatheism the only reasonable option
Within reason.
>muuhh mind body problem
Prove there is an existence after your brain's rotted from the skull.
>The certain scientific proof is simply the assumption of the body that dies
This is tactily accepting experience ends at brain death.
Not the guy you're replying to, but that is logically fair. But now I propose to you this. If the only guaranteed future is one that's feeds organic plants etc. Then what good are my worldly investments? Me giving people money as charity does nothing to improve my future of plant food, so the investment is worthless.
>implying the rules don't make this life worth more than the eternal one
>implying the rules weren't actually right all along
Go on op, fap away your youth, drink away your midyears, and waste away in your elder days.
>altered
>implying we don't have some of the originals
it is a 1:1 translation with the KJV
He just proved it. Simply by the laws of conservation, our energy is still there after we die. It may not be conscious energy, but it's our energy continuing on in the future after we die. As far as the questions you asked, he is correct. Every single one of us have a future after death. Maybe not a conscious future, but a future nonetheless.
It's semantics. The topic and question clearly centered around on qualia not the chemicals that make up your brain. It ends at brain death. End of discussion.
Worldly investments are for worldly needs and concern. Those are real as the keyboard you're using to type this post.
If you've surpassed the concerns of death/life/afterlife of normal human occupations, then by all means, you're a buddha and free from the mundane reality.
That's actually not true. KJV is not a 1:1 as the team of scholars were all Englishmen and none of them spoke Hebrew. So they themselves were using translated words to translate the document. Do you see the disconnect? It's true the message is the same, but it's not 1:1 because the Englishmen couldn't read Hebrew and mixed 2 types of manuscripts Greek and Hebrew.
Ok, then word your question better. What you should have said was "first prove there is a conscious future after death." You speak English, use your knowledge to accurately express what you're trying to express. There's a reason we have a word for "conscious" in our language and if that's what you meant. That's the word you should have used. It may be semantics, but semantics are important because they can change the meaning of the idea trying to be expresses.
Just as an I berate homeboy above me for failing to express his idea, I go and do the same thing. What I should have said was "what good are more worldly investments, in concern to the future?" Your original statement was "if you spend all the life trying to find pleasure and never invest in the future, you lose."
My question is: How does me finding pleasure for myself, make me "lose" if my only future is plant food? The simple act of living a virtuous life, in no way, shape or form effects me in regards to my unconscious future as plant food.
>effects me in my unconscious future as plant food
>me
If the proverbial "me" is simply physical properties, then whatever you do in this life is relevant to whatever happens afterwards.
Worries/happiness/etc are all bound to this body and life, not the next. But the actions you take always effect what happens at death. Each instance leads to different variations. Whether or not that leads to any revelations or relevancy to current life's approach to future life is ultimately a moot point.
>Is Apatheism the only reasonable option
yes
Apatheism is only an answer when you are considering a religion that has rules on behaviour.
Such as christianity, so basically you are asking to get christianity proven, which won't happen because christianity is a lie.
Now now, would you follow a religion that doesn't give you rules but rather a spiritual practice that you do in some moments of your life and then keep on with your life?
No silly commandments, merely some moments of your life devoted to meditation until you achieve gnosis.
>call themselves apatheist
>obsess about God every 10 second
whatever they are, "apatheist" is not it.
>rules on behavior
what is karma my man, and why did man bother establishing courts?
>what is karma
Something that doesn't exist.
>man established courts
Which is a manmade concept to live in civilization
>Something that doesn't exist.
brainlet detected
Prove it.
The fact that you carelessly use cursewords against others prove you do not fear karma.
No, Hebrew was well known among scholars in Europe when the KJV was being made.
They only favored the Septuagint in passages which the Church had given christiological significance.
>Brainlet is a curseword
dropped
blog.al.com
It's not the best source, but it's the first I found on Google. It's not a mystery. Jews have been saying for years that it's mistranslated.
It is a derogatory term used by those that do not fear a karmic consequence.
>backtracking
The man who doesn't know the difference between curses and so called derogatory is an authoritative source. Gotcha. Come back when you finish highschool. Also
>derogatory, not facual
If anything calling a spade a spade incurs positive karma.
Apatheists are just atheists who don't think about religious topics as much.
I'm not surprised that you attack the person instead of the argument, it's very christian of you, now go rape children, it's also very christian.