The future is just a fuc'ing concept that we use to avoid living today

[bowtie]

One certainty we can all agree is that at some point the life we know will die. How does that affect the choices we make? If you’re religious, you may not experience certain intriguing things because you believe it will effect your life-after-death situation. If you don’t believe in life-after-death you either do anything and/or everything that is intriguing to you or you don’t because of a number of reasons (morals, ethics, health, etc…). Another certainty is that there is no known certain outcome of death. So how do we make a decision, choice without ever knowing the whole impact? Take for a moment; Say after death our conscious is still there… Say you lived by the religious books and when death came there was nothing. Now, do you think you could live with yourself, having not experienced the infinite possibilities we have while we are able to experience life? Or do you somehow find solace in the path you took? (Can you?). Is it worth sacrificing the only life you will possibly have and live by religious beliefs, or is it worth living your life for the experiences and sacrificing the possible after-life? And if we are in the middle area of this situation, how do we pick and choose what experiences to indulge in?

[guesswest]

It sounds like you're talking about a kind of inverse pascal's wager. There's a bunch of problematic assumptions there.

The principle one is the assertion that living in accordance with religious beliefs somehow detracts from present-day experience. I'm not a theist myself, but I think many who are would argue that their religious subscription improves and adds to their experience of the present. Which is to say they're not only doing it out of some sense of deferred gratification with a view to being rewarded in the afterlife.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're talking about a kind of inverse pascal's wager. There's a bunch of problematic assumptions there.

The principle one is the assertion that living in accordance with religious beliefs somehow detracts from present-day experience. I'm not a theist myself, but I think many who are would argue that their religious subscription improves and adds to their experience of the present. Which is to say they're not only doing it out of some sense of deferred gratification with a view to being rewarded in the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that, but who can say it better than God himself?

35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. John 6:34-35

I am the bread of life. John 6:48

The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. John 6:63

...I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Galations 2:20

Have a great weekend, everyone!

[JuntMonkey]

Yea, you're making the assumption that religious people are miserable following their beliefs, sacrificing their current happiness and biding their time until they can finally die and be happy in Heaven.

While that's a common assumption by atheists, I'm not sure that I've ever actually met any spiritual/religious person who is consciously making himself unhappy now in anticipation of a better life after death. As another poster said, their lives are often enriched by their beliefs and practices.

There is also strong evidence that some spiritual practices, such as meditation, can improve your life substantially, right here and now.

[kazana]

Furthermore, even if you're a religion hater - the concept of looking/planning ahead helped us to get down from the frikkin trees in the first place.

[bowtie]

I am stricly speaking in terms of denying one's self from certain experiences. I.E. situations where one must sin to even have the experience, not entailing whether or not he/she can even shrug it off long enough to enjoy it. How do we decide when to indulge or abstain in those situations when we aren't really even sure if anything happens after death.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, even if you're a religion hater - the concept of looking/planning ahead helped us to get down from the frikkin trees in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your ancestor might have lived in a tree, but mine sure didn't.

[chezlaw]

Why make this topic which is quite interesting into a religon debate.

Supose you enjoy smoking very much and all the down side for you is in the future.

Why not smoke all you like now and fuc* the future?

chez

[bowtie]

sorry, but im not black. And secondly I dont believe we origonated from monkeys,apes,chimps..etc (Whichever one it is)

[bowtie]

THANK YOU. I purely wanted to hear how the unknowing result of death influences the decisions we make now while we're alive... or do they. I believe that everyone has a philosphy by which they go about life and so in this question I wanted to see what those ways of living a life are. I NEVER WANTED A RELIGIOUS DEBATE (THIS GOES OUT TO EVERYONE).

[bowtie]

haha

[OrigamiSensei]

Actually I find this to be a common misconception both within and without the church. Non-believers see believers as a bunch of fuddy-duddy no-fun types who aren't allowed to do anything. Many churches (and I say this because it is primarily institutionally driven rather than biblical) demand that their members live by a huge list of arbitrary rules, most beginning with "thou shalt not". Those lists include a lot of things that the Bible never prohibited (can't have any alcohol, can't dance, can't go to the movies, etc).

It becomes a lot easier to understand the real "thou shalt nots" when you run then through a simple filter:
1) Is it specifically prohibited in the Bible? Ten Commandments type of stuff.
2) Is this activity, though permitted, intefering in my relationship with God?
3) Does this activity harm me?
4) Does this activity harm someone else? does it violate the principle of "love thy neighbor"?
5) Is is prohibited by governmental authority?

Obviously numbers one and two are not something any non-believing person would care about - but running through questions 3 through 5 as a filter would not be untoward for any person and in fact by running through those three alone you'll often come up with the same answers a believer will.

Some examples:
Alcohol - there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting me from taking a drink. However, there is a large quantity of advice against drunkenness and otherwise overdoing it. But really, doesn't everyone (believer and non-believer alike) get disturbed when someone else's drinking causes problems? Whether it be alcoholism and drunk driving or more benign forms such as having to find a spot for the idiot who passed out, cleaning up the bathroom or even less appropriate area when they puke, or just putting up with the obnoxious drunk who thinks he's the life of the party when you just want him to go away.

Drugs - Truth be known if marijuana were legalized tomorrow there's nothing saying I couldn't toke up on a joint. However, the government says it's illegal. I am ordered to follow the laws imposed by my government as long as they don't cause me to violate God's ultimate law. Since I live in the US I generally don't have to worry about being forced into civil disobedience by that stricture so all I have to do is be a law-abiding citizen. But wait, aren't many non-believers moral and law-abiding? Thus any moral and law-abiding citizen will not be doing this either. Any objections on this front should really be taken up with the US government, not God.

Sex - So here I'll grant that there's a lot of differences. The Biblical standard is one man, one woman, for life and no sex before marriage. That can be difficult and I'll be the first to admit even I have violated that standard. But I will say that while adhering to the standard may not provide for as much "fun" there's also the benefit of not having to worry about STDs, unwanted pregnancies, the continual frustration getting shot down while trying to get some, continual dramabombs, etc. I can't go to a strip club? What a tragedy - I can't go to a place where the ONLY thing the women are interested in is separating me from my money as quickly and efficiently as possible. I hated strip clubs when I wasn't living up to the standard. No threesomes, nothing on the side? Even non-believers in general frown on adultery and general unfaithfulness in a committed relationship.
Now I must admit I'm an old married man of 40 and not dealing anymore with the difficulties of being young and unattached. But I can say that the ideal on one man, one woman in a committed relationship is happy and fulfilling emotionally and sexually after fourteen years of marriage. The simple truth is that most of us old, boring, married men are doing better in that department than all but the supreme playas - and if you spend five minutes in OOT you KNOW that does not describe the demographic of this website.

The point is that a lot of the things I'm supposedly giving up either weren't all that great in the first place or they were something that many non-believers would frown upon as well.

[bowtie]

Im not talking about religion. Im just talking about making decisions that you want to make even though they might not always be the ones that you should make.

[OrigamiSensei]

Understand I wasn't trying necessarily to form it in terms of religious debate - you asked in your original post how people go about making decisions on what to do and what not to do? In doing so I tried to show the overlap between what one type of person who believes in an afterlife (a Christian) might do and what others who may or may not believe in an afterlife might do. I believe there is significant overlap.

The point I failed to make clearly is that I am not giving up a whole lot of attractive things in this life for the sake of ensuring my afterlife. So even if for some reason I'm a complete dolt with my religious beliefs and there is no afterlife I've still lived a more enjoyable and joyful life than probably most people throughout history (due to my fortunate circumstances and not through anything particular that I've done).

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not talking about religion. Im just talking about making decisions that you want to make even though they might not always be the ones that you should make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah...you mentioned the afterlife in a couple of your posts, so I thought you were talking along those lines. Looking at it as a "should I smoke (because I like it), knowing it is probably shortening my life span?" type question is different.

Now I don't know...this is actually pretty difficult to reason out without the religion aspect.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Another certainty is that there is no known certain outcome of death. So how do we make a decision, choice without ever knowing the whole impact?

[/ QUOTE ]

I too find it interesting that death is included in an assumption of risk. Most people take death to be a bad thing by default, while it may not be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
The future is just a [...] concept that we use to avoid living today

[/ QUOTE ]

The title of the thread might be throwing some people off, but generally, it's hard to get into a topic involving the unknown (ie death) without sparking some sort of religious discussion. Still, I agree with the existence of the future affecting how we live in the present, but I'm not sure if it is solely a reason to avoid the present, as you so nobley note. With the future in light, certain actions become either positive or negative (I'm pretty sure there's been a thread on this not too long ago). Example: a man offers you a special investment: you pay him $1000 today, and he will pay you $10,000 in a week. Assuming the offer is 100% guaranteed, then it would be ridiculous to take the offer if you only lived one day at a time. However, if you are considering the future, then it would be ridiculous NOT to take this offer.

The same concept can be applied in countless "long run" situations. The issue that seems to be plaguing you is that certain actions that are likely better performed ASAP are being put off, relying on the future carrying better things. Example: the man above offers you a counterproposal: he pays you $10,000 today, and you pay him $1000 every day for an unspecified length of time. If you were living for today, you should take this offer. In fact, you should take this offer even if you were living only a week at a time. However, the risk grows if you consider more than 10 days.

Money is a very simplified example because it's easy to measure. There are certainly actions that are better performed ASAP, but many people just can't tolerate the risk.

[bowtie]

"So even if for some reason I'm a complete dolt with my religious beliefs and there is no afterlife I've still lived a more enjoyable and joyful life..." - OrigamiSensi

Yes but you talk as if its not even a possibility that our actions can effect our afterlife in a negative way. As if there is either life-after death which is "heaven" or there is nothing.

[OrigamiSensei]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at but maybe I can throw out a few things and hopefully address your issue.

It is a given that a Christian believes that our actions can affect our afterlife in a negative way. Hopefully there's no argument or confusion on that point. However, you do bring up the possibility of a third option and that should be addressed. From where I stand there are three possibilities:

1) That I am correct in my beliefs. There is an afterlife and it is the consistent with the framework of my beliefs. I have acted in a way that is intended to ensure my good standing during that afterlife. End result: I get the afterlife I want and I've lived a very satisfying and fulfilling life besides.

2) That I'm an idiot and I was delusional in believing there's an afterlife when in fact it's the big empty, the void, nothingness, nonexistence. Oh well, I was wrong but I've still lived a satisfying life.

3) The option I didn't address - there's an afterlife and I am completely wrong about what it is. If it's like a lot of people believe and all is hunky-dory if you've simply lived an okay life then I'm in good shape. If it's reincarnation in some Hindu manner then at least I've got another chance or chances to get it right. If the Muslims are right or I've offended some supreme being or otherwise got it wrong then yep, I'm in a world of hurt. I don't believe that to be true but I must accept that it is a conceivable possibility.

The problem is that we have to act on faith, and I don't mean faith in some religious sense. I should note a true atheist who says there is no God has just as much or more faith than someone who says there is. I have acted with faith on the evidence I have and I am comfortable with that decision - and I don't feel I've given up anything that grand in this life to do so.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There is also strong evidence that some spiritual practices, such as meditation, can improve your life substantially, right here and now.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between a spiritual and a religious practice. Atheists are fully capable of meditation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh well, I was wrong but I've still lived a satisfying life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't go into the rest of your posts here because it's off-topic, but the application of this to you is really irrelevant in a general sense.

First you seem to assume that everyone can live a satisfying life under Christianity, which aside from being false in principle is directly false according to the Bible itself. In many cases people sacrifice mortal happiness for God. This kind of utilitarian argument misses that whole element of Christianity (and arguably the whole point - even an evil person would be Christian if it were in his self-interest, no?). If your circumstances are so convenient that there is no major sacrifice for you in choosing a Christian life, then you're a beneficiary of fortune as much as God. (The arguments doesn't explicitly include the assumption that Christians live more fulfilling lives than atheists, but it's a common assumption that deserves mention. I don't think it's necessarily untrue, but the way it gets thrown around sometimes...)

Second, while you may live a satisfying life the question remains whether your actions have allowed others to do the same. Personally I think as a Christian you've probably done more harm than good, and that your actions should be interpreted in that context. Obviously you'd disagree, but the question is important and relevant regardless of the answer.

Finally this utilitarian argument applies equally to atheism. Your greatest fallacy is creating an entire category for the belief that puts you into heaven, but relegating the myriad of beliefs that put you into hell to the status of "a conceivable possibility." The argument can be re framed with identical structure as follows:

1. Only atheists go to heaven. I get the afterlife I couldn't even have hoped for and live a fulfilling life besides.

2. I'm correct in my beliefs. I live a satisfying life.

3. The "basket" that contains all other possibilities. If afterlife is "good" for all, then it's good for me. Reincarnation at least gives me another chance. If the Christians are right or I've offended some supreme being or otherwise got it wrong then yep, I'm in a world of hurt. I don't believe that to be true but I must accept that it is a conceivable possibility.

We do have to act on "faith," in that the ultimate basis of our action can never be rational as reason only processes established assertions, it can't create new ones from a vacuum. I think my conscience, my feelings and desires, and the things that naturally resonate with me, the things I'm passionate about, are the best things to have faith in. Not pieces of text, rules on a blackboard, or preachers with agendas. And particularly not a "God" that makes Cthulu look like a pleasant fellow.