Bereavement and children

ColmDawson

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like after death there is ... nothing?

No one is saying that there is definitely nothing. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that there is anything more than nothing.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't that just kicking the faith statement up the pitch - it takes faith to believe that 'us' is merely the totality of atoms contained within the boundary of our skin.

Yes, you certainly can boil every statement down to its constituent axioms which one must simply "believe". However, this renders every opinion and fact equivalent to each other.

Now, since I'd imagine you probably reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster more energetically than you reject the idea that there is a monitor in front of you (thereby implying that you actually believe that every opinion + fact are not equally credible) I conclude that you're simply adopting this absurd reductionist position simply to be needlessly argumentative.

My advice -- stop being so silly

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like after death there is ... nothing?

Once again, do you believe you chicken you ate for lunch is in chicken heaven? Or just in your stomach?

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

No one is saying that there is definitely nothing. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that there is anything more than nothing.

An interesting semantic.

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

There is no definitely, nearly definitely, likelys, perhaps about it. Just silence. And faith in response to that silence.

checkyabadself

@antiskeptic, would you care to post a response to the OP or are you just here to (literally) play the devils advocate.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

Once again, do you believe you chicken you ate for lunch is in chicken heaven? Or just in your stomach?

I've no idea.

Beruthiel

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no idea.

That's normally the best place to start looking at facts from.

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

so the fact that we've no evidence whatsoever for life after death means we cannot say anything about the possibility? the lack of evidence is not evidence itself?

ColmDawson

antiskeptic wrote: »

An interesting semantic.

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's..

There is no definitely, nearly definitely, likelys, perhaps about it. Just silence. And faith in response to that silence.

I've emboldened the completely unnecessary, wishfully thinking, here's-where-we-make-up-stories-indistinguishable-from-fairy-tales part.

Nothing wrong with silence pending evidence which may or may not come.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Yes, you certainly can boil every statement down to its constituent axioms which one must simply "believe". However, this renders every opinion and fact equivalent to each other.

Now, since I'd imagine you probably reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster more energetically than you reject the idea that there is a monitor in front of you (thereby implying that you actually believe that every opinion + fact are not equally credible) I conclude that you're simply adopting this absurd reductionist position simply to be needlessly argumentative.

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

It's faith Robindch. A faith wrapped up in a veil of scientific-sounding speculation. As if by invoking science, speculation can be parlayed into probability. As if.

Dades

Our consciousness comes from our brains. A sharp slap with a baseball bat empirically confirms that. They are our processors, and our hard drive.

If the brain is destroyed, faith is not required to assume the consciousness is also destroyed no more than it is to assume a computer is no longer running applications if you drive over it in a tank.

Faith only comes into play when somebody suggests something like "what if our consciousness is intangible, and floats out of our brains when our bodies stop functioning?"

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Due to complete and utter empirical silence on the question of the post-death environment (whatever it may be) any and all claims regarding it are faith-based. Including Robindch's.

Are you seriously saying that you've absolutely no idea if your body is going to decompose after you die?

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the fact that we've no evidence whatsoever for life after death means we cannot say anything about the possibility? the lack of evidence is not evidence itself?

The rigorously proper approach to absolute silence is silence. As soon as you start reading your own personal philosophy into it you'll start bending probabilities in the direction your philosophy is going in.

Does that mean we must "suppose orbiting giant teapots as yet unevidenced"? In the first instance, that's not silence - it's speculation in the face of silence. Secondly, for every ridiculous giant orbiting teapot as yet unevidenced, there's an equally marvelous discovery that would have appeared ridiculous before it finally came to light.

No one can say anything about the possibility of life or not .. after death. There is simply nothing to base probabilities on..

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

It's faith Robindch. A faith wrapped up in a veil of scientific-sounding speculation. As if by invoking science, speculation can be parlayed into probability. As if.

So what would you tell the child?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that you've absolutely no idea if your body is going to decompose after you die?

My body? Of course.

Me? That's a different matter - and is something held by faith. Just as you, by faith, seem to suppose youself as consisting of nothing more than your body.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't an iota what happens after death. Nor can you have - you have no way of establishing likelyhoods this way or that - confined as you are by the impossibility of establishing with any degree of certainty what the hell 'you' actually consists of.

Based upon my food consumption over the last few years, I believe I should be around 15% pizza, 15% chinese, 30% other cooked foods, 15% fruit and 25% air, water, beer and wine. This view is, of course, entirely faith-based and I could have been eating stones and drinking fermented horse's wee-wee during this time.

Honestly, antiskeptic, that post of yours has to be one of the silliest I've seen in this forum :rolleyes:

antiskeptic

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what would you tell the child?

Good question. Due to the double-ended nature of eternal destinations possible (in my 'faith') there isn't a pat one I can think of. I'll have to give it some thought.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Honestly, antiskeptic, that post of yours has to be one of the dumbest I've ever seen in this forum :rolleyes:

And that of your's a most obvious sidestep

Your position on nothingness after death isn't based on fact - it's based on philosophy. And philosophy is a faith-based activity.

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

No one can say anything about the possibility of life or not .. after death. There is simply nothing to base probabilities on..

so the original proposition made that there's life after death was just sheer speculation, and deserves as much thought as any other claim made without evidence?

MagicMarker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Good question. Due to the double-ended nature of eternal destinations possible (in my 'faith') there isn't a pat one I can think of. I'll have to give it some thought.

No worries, I'm sure the crying child in the corner will wait until you decide which option to go for.

zyndacyclone

The crying child doesn't care about amateur philosophy. My father died when I was a kid. My mother was weak, she let me abused a lot. Being told that my father 'was in heaven' watching over me, really didn't help. It just made me think that my father didn't love me and God didn't love me.

I've been an atheist since I was twelve thanks to idiots like you.

Beruthiel

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position on nothingness after death isn't based on fact

Based on the facts at hand. With nothing made up to fill in the gaps.

antiskeptic

magicbastarder wrote: »

so the original proposition made that there's life after death was just sheer speculation, and deserves as much thought as any other claim made without evidence?

Sorry. It's the atheist/agnostic forum and I've slotted into speaking as if empiricism is the only way to arrive at conclusions about things. It's a good manners kind of thing

Empirically (I should have said) there is only silence regarding the issue of post-death.

antiskeptic

zyndacyclone wrote: »

The crying child doesn't care about amateur philosophy. My father died when I was a kid. My mother was weak, she let me abused a lot. Being told that my father 'was in heaven' watching over me, really didn't help. It just made me think that my father didn't love me and God didn't love me.

I've been an atheist since I was twelve thanks to idiots like you.

I sorry for your loss at such an age. Whilst your mum probably said what she thought was best, there aren't easy answers to death. Nor could it be expected that anything spoken could salve the wounds left by death.

antiskeptic

Beruthiel wrote: »

Based on the facts at hand.

What pertinant facts lie to hand?

ColmDawson

antiskeptic wrote: »

My body? Of course.

Me? That's a different matter - and is something held by faith. Just as you, by faith, seem to suppose youself as consisting of nothing more than your body.

It's not faith! There's no faith involved in not making extra suppositions about existence.

Dades' computer analogy is apt. We know how a computer works, we know which combination of parts it requires to function in a certain way (or to function at all) and we know what goes wrong if we remove/damage some or all of its parts.

If a computer is destroyed, there is no discussion about the possibility that some of the data have gone on to occupy an immortal hard drive forever in another realm. Such a discussion is not required.

I'm not suggesting that a human is as simple as a computer, but the basic point is the same: not supposing things for which there is no evidence is not a position of faith. It is only when you take your idea of what happens and bring it one step outside the realm of evidence, that faith becomes involved.

maggy_thatcher

MagicMarker wrote: »

So what would you tell the child?

I'd show them The Lion King. James Earl Jones explaining the Circle of Life is a nice non-religious way of showing how matter is transferred around.

Mufasa wrote:

When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connnected in the great Circle of Life.

Boxoffrogs

I've had to confront this recently with my son. It was the first time he had experienced the loss of a person close to him. He got really upset, I found him crying in his room alone several times. I think like me when I first experienced loss, he may have been analysing the 'point to life', and that's a really tough one because I think a reason d'etre can be different from individual to individual. For me, I don't dwell on it much. My life can be so fulfilling and happy at times and I don't really need a 'reason'. All I did was give him an idea of my view and told him that in time he would find his own.

As far as what comes after, it used to be my wish that I be cremated, but now I want to rot and seep into the soil, I love the idea that while we don't live on, a kind of natural recycling occurs.

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that a human is as simple as a computer

No you're not. But you're suggesting from the outset that a person is but more of the same. Without telling us quite how you make this rather massive step. The computer analogy works because we know what goes into making up a computer. We don't know what goes into making up a 'self' and are not permitted the faith-based insertion of a materialistic philosophy to render the result we would like

not supposing things for which there is no evidence is not a position of faith. It is only when you take your idea of what happens and bring it one step outside the realm of evidence, that faith becomes involved.

There is no evidence that 'you' ceases to exist at death - no least because we don't actually quite know what 'you' is to begin in order to wonder whether it can die. The objection I'm making is based on Robindch supposing what happens after death. His is a positive statement regarding the afterlife - and so demands evidence. Of which there is none.

Kooli

I think my tactic would be to go with the sesame street approach of 'he's dead, and he's not coming back, and that's really really sad but come and talk to me about it whenever you like etc. etc.'.
No euphemisms, no 'he's passed away', 'he's passed on' etc., that doesn't work with kids they'll just end up confused.

However, I think I might add in the extra bit about 'some people believe that there's a place called heaven where everyone goes, some people believe that we become the soil that feeds the plants that feed the animals etc.', because no doubt other well-meaning folk are going to mention the heaven part, so there's no point trying to hide it.