"Why do atheists want to honor dead because they don't believe in the afterlife" ?

[dillan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related

Dumbest question or does it make sense?

[Walt]

Everyone, including atheists, sees the obvious, that all people have
an "afterlife" in the effect they have, great or small, on human
society and culture that contiues on after they are gone. And in the
hearts of those who cared about them.

[philosophy]

It is superbly dumb.
What is wrong with honoring individuals who have given their lives to
protect everyone? Soldiers are not there to just protect Christians or
Muslims or any religion, I would not have thought. Anyway, the dead
person may have been a really nice individual, so why shouldn't
recognition be given to that. What I see in this video is a case of
dumb and dumber. Just because an atheist doesn't believe in life after
death, does not mean they are going to ignore the living. Funerals
etc are for the living, they are not for the dead. They have bugger
all to do with the afterlife. Sounds like an ignorant Christian
comment to me.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:58 AM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is superbly dumb.

Given that Dillan, himself, is an anti-atheist bigot, much like that woman on Fox News, I'm not surprised that this would be a question in his mind.

I'm also not surprised that he was too chickenshit to post his opinion.

Not that it isn't obvious.

--

"It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."  -- Augustine

[Timbo]

Your speaking of all events including thought has afterlife because
the events of thinking about an event that once took place is thought
about. This necessarily means that all events have after life
including Jeffery Domer eating and fucking the dead guts of young
boys. To think "I love my parents for said events" justifies "I hate
Jeffery for what he did."

[Drafterman]

My response to the video:

"No. It's not a dumb question. Furthermore, labelling it as a dumb
question and mocking the asker isn't goint to do atheists any good if
there is some end goal of general acceptance of atheism socially and
culturally in areas where it is currently treated less tham
amiacably."

[dillan]

On Jun 14, 9:52 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My response to the video:
>
> "No. It's not a dumb question. Furthermore, labelling it as a dumb
> question and mocking the asker isn't goint to do atheists any good if
> there is some end goal of general acceptance of atheism socially and
> culturally in areas where it is currently treated less tham
> amiacably."

I agree with you. But since I'm not an atheist, I can say with no
reservation, that it is kinda dumb. Phil is right. Belief in afterlife
has no baring on whether someone should respect and honor the dead.

[Drafterman]

On Jun 14, 10:11 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 9:52 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My response to the video:
>
> > "No. It's not a dumb question. Furthermore, labelling it as a dumb
> > question and mocking the asker isn't goint to do atheists any good if
> > there is some end goal of general acceptance of atheism socially and
> > culturally in areas where it is currently treated less tham
> > amiacably."
>
> I agree with you. But since I'm not an atheist, I can say with no
> reservation, that it is kinda dumb. Phil is right. Belief in afterlife
> has no baring on whether someone should respect and honor the dead.

Which means the question is SIMPLISTIC, but not dumb. Atheism is a
strange thing to most people in America, and unknown. People need to
be educated about it. Without education, we have no choice to think
simply about things. Take Physics. You learn the simple first, then
move on to the more complicated.

Her rationale: "Atheists don't believe in the after life, so why honor
the deal" is a result of simplistic thinking to the point of fault.

So what is the appropriate way to deal with this? Call the question
(and by extension, the asker) dumb? Should we even treat the question
as dumb and respond in a condescending way? Yes, there was a certain
mocking tone to her question, and I'm responding in a more general way
than specifically to her.

>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 12:07 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related
>

> > > Dumbest question or does it make sense?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[dillan]

On Jun 14, 10:29 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 10:11 am, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 14, 9:52 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > My response to the video:
>
> > > "No. It's not a dumb question. Furthermore, labelling it as a dumb
> > > question and mocking the asker isn't goint to do atheists any good if
> > > there is some end goal of general acceptance of atheism socially and
> > > culturally in areas where it is currently treated less tham
> > > amiacably."
>
> > I agree with you. But since I'm not an atheist, I can say with no
> > reservation, that it is kinda dumb. Phil is right. Belief in afterlife
> > has no baring on whether someone should respect and honor the dead.
>
> Which means the question is SIMPLISTIC, but not dumb. Atheism is a
> strange thing to most people in America, and unknown. People need to
> be educated about it. Without education, we have no choice to think
> simply about things. Take Physics. You learn the simple first, then
> move on to the more complicated.
>
> Her rationale: "Atheists don't believe in the after life, so why honor
> the deal" is a result of simplistic thinking to the point of fault.
>
> So what is the appropriate way to deal with this? Call the question
> (and by extension, the asker) dumb? Should we even treat the question
> as dumb and respond in a condescending way? Yes, there was a certain
> mocking tone to her question, and I'm responding in a more general way
> than specifically to her.
>

I agree with you 100% (even if you don't like that). The reason I said
it was dumb because her reasoning make no sense to me. I don't think
anyone honors the dead because by honoring them, they'll go to a
better place in the afterlife.

[Drafterman]

Your reasoning often doesn't make sense to me.

Concede that you're dumb and I'll concede the point here.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[dillan]

On Jun 14, 12:41 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your reasoning often doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Concede that you're dumb and I'll concede the point here.

LOL.. wow.. DMan... I will concede I'm dumb.

[Eris]

The Germans invented the provocateur in WWII and this would explain
Dillans fascination with their leader.
On Jun 14, 7:12 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:

The Germans invented the provocateur in WWII and this  would explain
Dillans fascination with their leader.

No doubt.

[Jelrak TB]

On Jun 13, 10:07 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related
>
> Dumbest question or does it make sense?

I think it was a fair question, but it should have been asked of an
atheist who could then have supplied the obvious answer. The question
merely showed a degree of ignorance that would have been helpful to
address.

[LL]

On Jun 13, 9:07 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related
>
> Dumbest question or does it make sense?

LL: No, it makes no sense. Belief in an afterlife has no bearing on
whether people honor their dead and anyone with a grain of
intelligence would know this.

Most westernized humans "honor" their pets in death. Does that mean
they think their pets have an afterlife or does it mean belief in an
afterlife has no bearing on how we treat the body of someone we cared
for?

It takes a tremendous amount of ignorance to make the distinction or
to bring up such an ignorant question. Only a fool would have asked
this.

*********************

[thea]

Oh yeah.  Since when it is a fool who thinks that you should cremate everyone
in order to have more space on earth.
Think about all the chemicals that have been put in the dead bodies in order
to have them look just like they looked the last time you looked inside their
coffin.  And now these chemicals are in our water supply.
Since when, do we have to so revere the dead -- after they are gone.
We should do just like they used to do -- have a big wake!!
Life is for the living.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

WebRep

Overall rating

 

[LL]

On Jun 14, 3:33 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah.  Since when it is a fool who thinks that you should cremate
> everyone
> in order to have more space on earth.
> Think about all the chemicals that have been put in the dead bodies in order
> to have them look just like they looked the last time you looked inside
> their
> coffin.  And now these chemicals are in our water supply.
> Since when, do we have to so revere the dead -- after they are gone.
> We should do just like they used to do -- have a big wake!!
> Life is for the living.
>

LL. Well having a wake is also honoring the dead. Maybe you'd like to
just send your loved ones' bodies into the trash, never to be thought
of again, but I'd rather honor them by giving them a decent send-off
thebestway i can.

While were on the subject, it has occurred to me that there would be
more rational if theist who believes in an afterlife did not honor the
dead. After all, the person's soul has gone to its just rewards,
hopefully to a better place, so why bother honoring a dead body?
There's certainly more reason for a theist to dishonor a loved one's
body than an atheist.

..........

> Overall rating

[thea]

Having a wake is honoring the living.  It is not honoring the dead.
A funeral supposedly honors the dead.
All that does is make you spend a lot of money to put someone in
the ground that is going to decay and rot away anyway.

To me this dying business is just that a business to extract all the
money from a family that it can.

Had a friend who's husband died.  She put 7,000 on her credit
card and paid for that the rest of her life.  The credit card company
lost money when she died, as she had to close relatives or
any money or insurance for her own funeral.

If you please, just dump me in the ground, and let nature take
its course.
Forget the flowers - they are to make you feel better.
Forget the food - that is just putting food in your belly - go thru
the fast food.
Forget the minister - he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Forget everything except what the laws of the State you are
living in says you have to do to bury a body.
Mourn for the chemicals which eventually make it in to
somebody's food chain.
Mourn because you feel lonesome - but don't say you are
honoring a dead corpse.

[Lexie]

Wow, Thea...

You sound anti-honor...

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes. 

                                 --W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to it laughing. 

                    --Stubb in Moby Dick 

[LL]

On Jun 14, 11:14 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Having a wake is honoring the living.  

LL: So is having a funeral. The deceased isn't affected at all.

It is not honoring the dead.
> A funeral supposedly honors the dead.

LL: At least you said "supposedly." In fact it honors the living in
the guise of honoring the dead.

> All that does is make you spend a lot of money to put someone in
> the ground that is going to decay and rot away anyway.
>
> To me this dying business is just that a business to extract all the
> money from a family that it can.
>
> Had a friend who's husband died.  She put 7,000 on her credit
> card and paid for that the rest of her life.  The credit card company
> lost money when she died, as she had to close relatives or
> any money or insurance for her own funeral.
>
> If you please, just dump me in the ground, and let nature take
> its course.
> Forget the flowers - they are to make you feel better.
> Forget the food - that is just putting food in your belly - go thru
> the fast food.
> Forget the minister - he doesn't know what he is talking about.
> Forget everything except what the laws of the State you are
> living in says you have to do to bury a body.
> Mourn for the chemicals which eventually make it in to
> somebody's food chain.
> Mourn because you feel lonesome - but don't say you are
> honoring a dead corpse.

LL: Well, would you do that 5to your loved ones if they didn't say
what they wanted?

I agree too much is spent on funerals and wakes. The simpler the
better, I say. But there has to be something. We can't just throw
loved ones' bodies away like trash. There are public health concerns
besides human feelings, so there have to be some rules. If it were
left up to the state, they would probably cremate everyone without
ceremony, but it wouldn't be without cost. Our taxes would pay for
this "service." As they say there are two things that are certain,
death and taxes, and often they go together.

*****************


*********************

[thea]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Lexie <abean...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wow, Thea...

You sound anti-honor...

It's called life and living and seeing too many people suffer because they have
been brainwashed to believe they have to have a *big* funeral, spend a lot of money,
and make everyone around them *feel-good*.
It's a bunch of hog wash.  A dead body according to the Bible should be
in the ground before sunset of the same day they die.
All that we reverence is something that has taken place in the last
200 years here in the US.
When we were settling the West.  Someone who died was buried and stones
were placed atop the grave so wild animals could not destroy the body.
Other than a cross at the head, they were left, and people marched on
across the land to the Pacific Ocean.
How many died.  You didn't mourn for weeks over someone being gone.
You have to live.  The other person who cried was a parent, or a
spouse.
In other words, all we now know about the funeral industry is that it is
made to make us *feel guilty* enough to pay them a lot of money.
Welcome to the real world.

 

WebRep

[Walt]

Very true. That's why everyone should leave written instructions of
some kind about their funeral, insisting the cost be kept to a
minimum. Donating your body to Science is a great way to end your
life with a final act of thoughtfulness towards all.

On Jun 15, 2:45 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Jun 15, 2011, at 2:14 AM, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Having a wake is honoring the living.  It is not honoring the dead.
> > A funeral supposedly honors the dead.
> > All that does is make you spend a lot of money to put someone in
> > the ground that is going to decay and rot away anyway.
>
> > To me this dying business is just that a business to extract all the
> > money from a family that it can.
>
> > Had a friend who's husband died.  She put 7,000 on her credit
> > card and paid for that the rest of her life.  The credit card company
> > lost money when she died, as she had to close relatives or
> > any money or insurance for her own funeral.
>
> > If you please, just dump me in the ground, and let nature take
> > its course.
> > Forget the flowers - they are to make you feel better.
> > Forget the food - that is just putting food in your belly - go thru
> > the fast food.
> > Forget the minister - he doesn't know what he is talking about.
> > Forget everything except what the laws of the State you are
> > living in says you have to do to bury a body.
> > Mourn for the chemicals which eventually make it in to
> > somebody's food chain.
> > Mourn because you feel lonesome - but don't say you are
> > honoring a dead corpse.
>

> >> > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > For more options, visit this group at
> >> > > <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>
> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >> > WebRep
> >> > Overall rating
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >> <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> >> atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> WebRep

> Overall rating- Hide quoted text -

[Lexie]

Just because we don't believe in the "afterlife" doesn't mean that we
can't honor the life and memories of our loved ones...
Funerals are for saying goodbye...

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

On Jun 14, 2011, at 12:07 AM, dillan <dfer...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related
>
> Dumbest question or does it make sense?
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com

> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com
> .

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en

> .
>

[Lexie]

That's I'm I'm gonna do...
Donate my body...
But I guess it depends on how I die...
Hopefully I die of old age, and in my sleep...

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com
> .

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en

> .
>

[Walt]

You're young enough so you may never die.

Assuming Neil's wrong about you :o) .

> > .- Hide quoted text -

[Lexie]

Lol
And what? Are you talking about the thing that walt is talking about??

Man is in love, and loves what vanishes.
--W. B. Yeats

I know not all that may be coming, but be it what it will, I'll go to
it laughing.
--Stubb in Moby Dick

[xeno]

On Jun 13, 9:07 pm, dillan <dferna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWYXWfLsQ6g&feature=related
>

> Dumbest question or does it make sense?

The system needs people to get behind their wars and that includes
non-believers, (in reference to Obama including non-believers). Other
than that, people will pay respect to whomever they deem has done
something noteworthy. Some people think that it's a contradiction to
honor the dead when one doesn't believe in an afterlife because
they're begging the question that there is an afterlife. Also the
question implies that atheists are incapable of "honoring" anything
given that they dont "honor" the "almighty".

[thea]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Very true.  That's why everyone should leave written instructions of
some kind about their funeral, insisting the cost be kept to a
minimum.  Donating your body to Science is a great way to end your
life with a final act of thoughtfulness towards all.

Thank you, Walt, it is not always possible to get the Science to take
your body, especially when it is so old that it can't help them.
But to leave body parts for transplant is also a way to help mankind.
And they can use all of me??!!
 

WebRep

[xeno]

On Jun 14, 6:15 am, Timbo <thcus...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Your speaking of all events including thought has afterlife because
> the events of thinking about an event that once took place is thought
> about. This necessarily means that all events have after life
> including Jeffery Domer eating and fucking the dead guts of young
> boys. To think "I love my parents for said events" justifies "I hate
> Jeffery for what he did."

You mean the record of some past event has an existence after the fact
of the events but the existence of the record is contingent, not
necessary. Not all events are remembered and/or recorded. So Dorner is
still currently in people's minds. Most sociopaths whoever lived are
not. & where's your so-called afterlife when humans are extinct?

[xeno]

On Jun 14, 10:01 am, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Germans invented the provocateur in WWII and this  would explain
> Dillans fascination with their leader.

Er, provocateur has a french origin with an etymology prior to WW2.

[xeno]

On Jun 14, 3:33 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

.

> Think about all the chemicals that have been put in the dead bodies

Think of all the chemicals put in live ones. It's a conspiracy.

[thea]

Think so - well, I was taught in school, way back when, that food
that we put in our mouths, turn to chemicals to feed our bodies
what it needs to survive.  That is why we eat??

[xeno]

On Jun 16, 1:04 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Think about all the chemicals that have been put in the dead bodies

> > Think of all the chemicals put in live ones. It's a conspiracy.

> Think so ...

Yeah. Think additives.