Explain how this “constant praise” scenario makes any sense with or without anthropomorphism.
I am empathetic to the limitations that come with advancing years. That’s why we have got to live for today and enjoy and appreciate what we have now. Forget about the false hope of a blissful eternal afterlife, it is silly. Sure it may bring you temporary thought comfort but the stark reality is that this life is all we get. Make the best of it for yourself, your loved ones, and others while you can.
Although I certainly don’t agree with Christopher Hitchens on all things, he does discuss his own outlook on this question:
I hope you realize that your argument presumes your omniscience.
No, not at all. Just the knowledge that every organism’s life is finite.
That is not the whole story.
Yours is the false hope (you have one, you know). I presume you’ve seen Speaking of CSI?
You are presuming omniscience.
Nope. I’m presuming a better source of information than myself.
That would be a presumption of omniscience.
Sure it would.
It has to do with understanding what testimony to accept as true in the court of reality. You’re a jury of one (we all are).
You are presuming omniscience again.
If I were a jury, I wouldn’t accept claims that require me to die in order to see supporting evidence.
You are demonstrating that you do not know what the word means. I do pretend to know some important details that you are missing, however.
I am using the word “omniscience” in the same way you used it to respond to @Patrick post.
I tend to think you are pretending as well.
Then you are not thinking well if you’ve read Speaking of CSI and its associated links.
Your n needs to be higher.
It’s way higher than you know.
You are pretending to have omniscience again.
No, just to understanding the most important things about reality.