7 ms·

Sorry for your loss, and thank you for your perspective. >> Absolutely right. There is a certain cowardice in how we deal with death in the contemporary west.

Sorry for your loss, and thank you for your perspective. >> Absolutely right. There is a certain cowardice in how we deal with death in the contemporary west. I never thought about it but it likely stems from loss of religion, like many other problems. If I see my life as insignificant in the chain of generations - as a conduit between ancestors and descendants - and believe in the soul at least as a metaphor - then personal death or that of others is sad, but is in the context of a deeply meaningful existence. On the other hand, if I am closer to atheistic hedonism/nihilism - there's nothing else but me and my thoughts and experiences, then my existence or non-existence takes on a very heavy weight - and we project that onto others.

lotsofpulp 1y ago
All the atheistic/agnostic people I know believe they are insignificant in the grand scheme of nature, not just in the chain of generations of people. If anything, I find religious people are the ones who believe humans are special.
- xyzelement 1y ago
  I think you're right on the word level but I think there's a difference about what significance and insignificance means to these groups. As a religious person, I see my life as insignificant compared to Gd, and compared to the chain of generations, but what I do with my life is extremely significant. As in, whether I bring children into this world and raise them well, is massively significant. So maybe the way to say it is - religious people see themselves as insignificant in the context of much greater significance. The other view of insignificance is that nothing is significant - including myself. I don't subscribe to that.
  - resize2996 1y ago
    Equating these things with a "Belief in god" belies a narrow view of spirituality.
  - krapp 1y ago
    Do you really believe atheists are incapable of recognizing the significance of children or of caring about them?
    - xyzelement 1y ago
      No, I don't believe that. I valued children just as much when I was an atheist as when I became religion. What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. I work in FAANG and previously in finance, so my peers are people who can certainly afford kids and are positioned to take care of them - and yet literally most are choosing to do something else. I am not commenting on a universal attitude, I am commenting on a significant trend that I think is obvious.
      - krapp 1y ago
        >What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. Do all of your religious friends subscribe to the same religion? If so, does this religion proscribe having children and raising families as a necessary, or desired, component of the faith or community? Because you could be confusing religion and culture here. Secular values often abrogate traditional gender and sexual norms, so secular people may not feel compelled to "be fruitful and multiply." I wouldn't ascribe that to lack of religion per se so much as not being affected by the same cultural pressures. After all, plenty of theists are essentially forced into marriage and children because it's what's expected, not because it's what they want.
        xyzelement 1y ago
        I am not sure "culture" and "religion" are separable in the long run but I don't think that aligns with the point you're making. Religious people see "be fruitful and multiply" as a literal command from G-d and one of the fundamental points of religion. So while religious culture can evolve, the evolution of this attitude isn't a flexible point. On the flip side, secular culture has no intrinsic reason for "family values" - which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness - because reasons "why not" are more immediate and in your face, vs "why yes." So yes it's "culture" but what the culture is is obviously determined by your underlying beliefs and that which you consider eternal and that which you consider negotiable.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    Thanks, this is clearer.
krapp 1y ago
Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. This is a common theist libel which is surprisingly popular on this forum of ersatz rational thinkers and logicians. Atheists are perfectly capable of finding value and meaning in their own lives and the world around them, they just don't base that value on a belief in the supernatural. Listen to any astrophysicist, physicist or biologist talk about their field and you'll encounter a wonder and awe that no theologian reciting thousand year old tracts can match.
- NateEag 1y ago
  > Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. And if the GP thought it did, he would not have bothered to qualify it with those labels. Since they _did_ specify "atheistic hedonism/nihilism," we know they're talking about those specific stripes of atheism, and can discuss that.
  - xyzelement 1y ago
    It looks like you were downvoted but for what it's worth you parsed and explained my intention accurately, and I appreciate that.
    - NateEag 1y ago
      You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to clarify it. It's not the first time I've made such a clarification - it's a very human impulse to defend your belief system from unjust attacks that aren't actually there.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
enobrev 1y ago
I'm surprised by this take, simply because of my own experience, where the further I've gotten from religion over a very long time, the less significant I've found death. Not having "answers" to what comes next has never been a weight for me - at least not since I was a child. Death being a completion, or a finality, is freeing; The end of what has been and what I hope continues to be a wonderful journey. The only weight I carry in regards to death are for those closest to me, and especially those for whom I'm responsible.
- graemep 1y ago
  I find that surprising in turn! What were the beliefs you had around death? I can sort of see why you found it less significant, but in monotheistic religions it is still pretty final. It is still the end of the one life you get, even if it is also the entry into something completely different and better.
  - tenacious_tuna 1y ago
    I typed out the response below but I'm not sure I have a coherent response as to why the secular zeitgeist of death is less intimidating to me than the religious context of it. (Though, I'm not who you're replying to.) I think it comes down to the sheer amount of pressure I felt within religion to be a certain way while also being told I could never be that way enough to achieve satisfaction in the eyes of god, and outside of religion I'm just another person in a flawed world trying to do my best. -------- At the risk of being redundant, death within religion isn't an end, but yet another beginning. Eternal life is the reward for being a diligent disciple, where that means internalizing one's inherent flawed nature and inability to be redeemed but through death in devotion to god... which is a hell of a weight to carry throughout ones' life! The Christian ethos is woven through with constantly being judged. And forgiven, yes, in theory, but still there is a constant undertone of "you cannot avoid making mistakes, and the mistakes you make are so offensive to god he wouldn't want you anywhere near him, but for magic religion reasons you've been redeemed by god doing something so terribly debased that it outweighs all the awful mistakes you've made." Death (and "everlasting life") is no reprieve from this, but a form of stick that weighs heavy over you all through your days. You must work to save those around you, or they'll be eternally lost. You must cleave to the teachings of god, or at the very least belief in him, or you'll be eternally lost. Since I left the church so many things of import that I felt I didn't understand now make much more sense; I struggled to comprehend how god could allow suffering, but now I see that the universe is just absurd and uncaring. While that may seem less comforting, I find the notions of bad things happening randomly less upsetting than there being an all-powerful being who cares about me but chooses to let me suffer for reasons that were never convincing, and as I've grown older sound more and more like an abusive relationship. Through that lens, death is just a natural consequence of the world. Scary, yes, in the sense that I may not live up to all I want to be before my time is up, but I'm not pre-marked as eternally flawed and only redeemable through processes that do not make sense to me. Instead I know that I can only do my best, and that has to be enough, because I can't possibly do more.
rdiddly 1y ago
Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death. I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking. We're used to thinking we control things, and can get anything we want. One thing useful from the religions was having a healthy sense of your own limitations, or you could say a sense of wonder or mystery or perspective. A reminder that you're not the most powerful thing in the universe. Which is true, and healthy to be aware of, whether any god exists or not. Edit to add: There are few places where that hubris and certainty tend to be more pronounced than among doctors. Part of what this woman is grieving is probably the loss of certainty, of control or the illusion thereof.
- graemep 1y ago
  > Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death. It maybe a factor, but I do not think it was the main one. Death is still very hard to cope with, regardless of religious belief. There are other things behind religious belief, mostly experiences. > I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking
lproven 1y ago
This is not even slightly true and seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding of atheism. From my perspective as atheist since the age of 11, it's the reverse of the case.

lotsofpulp 1y ago

All the atheistic/agnostic people I know believe they are insignificant in the grand scheme of nature, not just in the chain of generations of people. If anything, I find religious people are the ones who believe humans are special.

xyzelement 1y ago
I think you're right on the word level but I think there's a difference about what significance and insignificance means to these groups. As a religious person, I see my life as insignificant compared to Gd, and compared to the chain of generations, but what I do with my life is extremely significant. As in, whether I bring children into this world and raise them well, is massively significant. So maybe the way to say it is - religious people see themselves as insignificant in the context of much greater significance. The other view of insignificance is that nothing is significant - including myself. I don't subscribe to that.
- resize2996 1y ago
  Equating these things with a "Belief in god" belies a narrow view of spirituality.
- krapp 1y ago
  Do you really believe atheists are incapable of recognizing the significance of children or of caring about them?
  - xyzelement 1y ago
    No, I don't believe that. I valued children just as much when I was an atheist as when I became religion. What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. I work in FAANG and previously in finance, so my peers are people who can certainly afford kids and are positioned to take care of them - and yet literally most are choosing to do something else. I am not commenting on a universal attitude, I am commenting on a significant trend that I think is obvious.
    - krapp 1y ago
      >What's significant though is the PREVALENT opinion. 100% of my religious friends want and have kids, while the majority of my secular friends do not. Do all of your religious friends subscribe to the same religion? If so, does this religion proscribe having children and raising families as a necessary, or desired, component of the faith or community? Because you could be confusing religion and culture here. Secular values often abrogate traditional gender and sexual norms, so secular people may not feel compelled to "be fruitful and multiply." I wouldn't ascribe that to lack of religion per se so much as not being affected by the same cultural pressures. After all, plenty of theists are essentially forced into marriage and children because it's what's expected, not because it's what they want.
      - xyzelement 1y ago
        I am not sure "culture" and "religion" are separable in the long run but I don't think that aligns with the point you're making. Religious people see "be fruitful and multiply" as a literal command from G-d and one of the fundamental points of religion. So while religious culture can evolve, the evolution of this attitude isn't a flexible point. On the flip side, secular culture has no intrinsic reason for "family values" - which is why, I think, atheist culture over time devolves to childlessness - because reasons "why not" are more immediate and in your face, vs "why yes." So yes it's "culture" but what the culture is is obviously determined by your underlying beliefs and that which you consider eternal and that which you consider negotiable.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  Thanks, this is clearer.

krapp 1y ago

Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. This is a common theist libel which is surprisingly popular on this forum of ersatz rational thinkers and logicians. Atheists are perfectly capable of finding value and meaning in their own lives and the world around them, they just don't base that value on a belief in the supernatural. Listen to any astrophysicist, physicist or biologist talk about their field and you'll encounter a wonder and awe that no theologian reciting thousand year old tracts can match.

NateEag 1y ago
> Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. And if the GP thought it did, he would not have bothered to qualify it with those labels. Since they _did_ specify "atheistic hedonism/nihilism," we know they're talking about those specific stripes of atheism, and can discuss that.
- xyzelement 1y ago
  It looks like you were downvoted but for what it's worth you parsed and explained my intention accurately, and I appreciate that.
  - NateEag 1y ago
    You're welcome. I'm glad I was able to clarify it. It's not the first time I've made such a clarification - it's a very human impulse to defend your belief system from unjust attacks that aren't actually there.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

enobrev 1y ago

I'm surprised by this take, simply because of my own experience, where the further I've gotten from religion over a very long time, the less significant I've found death. Not having "answers" to what comes next has never been a weight for me - at least not since I was a child. Death being a completion, or a finality, is freeing; The end of what has been and what I hope continues to be a wonderful journey. The only weight I carry in regards to death are for those closest to me, and especially those for whom I'm responsible.

graemep 1y ago
I find that surprising in turn! What were the beliefs you had around death? I can sort of see why you found it less significant, but in monotheistic religions it is still pretty final. It is still the end of the one life you get, even if it is also the entry into something completely different and better.
- tenacious_tuna 1y ago
  I typed out the response below but I'm not sure I have a coherent response as to why the secular zeitgeist of death is less intimidating to me than the religious context of it. (Though, I'm not who you're replying to.) I think it comes down to the sheer amount of pressure I felt within religion to be a certain way while also being told I could never be that way enough to achieve satisfaction in the eyes of god, and outside of religion I'm just another person in a flawed world trying to do my best. -------- At the risk of being redundant, death within religion isn't an end, but yet another beginning. Eternal life is the reward for being a diligent disciple, where that means internalizing one's inherent flawed nature and inability to be redeemed but through death in devotion to god... which is a hell of a weight to carry throughout ones' life! The Christian ethos is woven through with constantly being judged. And forgiven, yes, in theory, but still there is a constant undertone of "you cannot avoid making mistakes, and the mistakes you make are so offensive to god he wouldn't want you anywhere near him, but for magic religion reasons you've been redeemed by god doing something so terribly debased that it outweighs all the awful mistakes you've made." Death (and "everlasting life") is no reprieve from this, but a form of stick that weighs heavy over you all through your days. You must work to save those around you, or they'll be eternally lost. You must cleave to the teachings of god, or at the very least belief in him, or you'll be eternally lost. Since I left the church so many things of import that I felt I didn't understand now make much more sense; I struggled to comprehend how god could allow suffering, but now I see that the universe is just absurd and uncaring. While that may seem less comforting, I find the notions of bad things happening randomly less upsetting than there being an all-powerful being who cares about me but chooses to let me suffer for reasons that were never convincing, and as I've grown older sound more and more like an abusive relationship. Through that lens, death is just a natural consequence of the world. Scary, yes, in the sense that I may not live up to all I want to be before my time is up, but I'm not pre-marked as eternally flawed and only redeemable through processes that do not make sense to me. Instead I know that I can only do my best, and that has to be enough, because I can't possibly do more.

rdiddly 1y ago

Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death. I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking. We're used to thinking we control things, and can get anything we want. One thing useful from the religions was having a healthy sense of your own limitations, or you could say a sense of wonder or mystery or perspective. A reminder that you're not the most powerful thing in the universe. Which is true, and healthy to be aware of, whether any god exists or not. Edit to add: There are few places where that hubris and certainty tend to be more pronounced than among doctors. Part of what this woman is grieving is probably the loss of certainty, of control or the illusion thereof.

graemep 1y ago
> Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death. It maybe a factor, but I do not think it was the main one. Death is still very hard to cope with, regardless of religious belief. There are other things behind religious belief, mostly experiences. > I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking

lproven 1y ago

This is not even slightly true and seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding of atheism. From my perspective as atheist since the age of 11, it's the reverse of the case.