Bereavement and children

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.

axer

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

Do you think, like the analogy earlier, that there is a high chance that chicken you hypothetically ate for dinner is still 'living'?

I think you will find that most atheists work on probabilities. It is extremely highly unlikely, given what we know, that 'you' will live on past your death. There is zero evidence suggesting 'you' will live on. You can hypothesise that you do but there is no evidence - not even an inkling of evidence.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

And that of your's a most obvious sidestep

A compliment indeed from the high-priest of side-stepping, prevarication, vacuous hand-waving, metaphysical flapdoodle and dry-roasted waffle

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your position on nothingness after death isn't based on fact - it's based on philosophy.

It's based upon a number of facts:

• "I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works
• My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.
• There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life
• The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.

Tough cookie, we all die. Been fun all the same though.

ColmDawson

Wikipedia wrote:

Because the frontal lobes are responsible for human behaviour and emotional development, trauma to the front of the cerebral cortex impairs perception and rationality, social behaviour, personality, language skills, attention span, motor skills, and sexual behaviour[4][1], as well as facial expression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe_injury

Antiskeptic, do you accept that the features listed above are a very large part of what makes me 'me'? Do you also accept that change in those areas (caused by, say, a frontal lobe injury) could easily alter my personality to the point where I am, apart from my physical appearance, no longer the 'me' I once was?

All that damage can happen while a person is still living. I think we can take it that a dead brain would have quite a lot less to offer in terms of being 'me'.

sink

Antiskeptic. It's a fairly well established fact that our physical brains are responsible for our thoughts and conciousness. The entire field of neuroscience is predicated upon such. We can alter our conscious state with psychotropic substances, we can stimulate our brains with electrodes to simulate sensations such as taste and colour. We can observe physical damage to a brain altering ones personality, making them more passive/aggressive or hyper/calm or trusting/paranoid. Physical damage to the brain can also completely wipe memories and prevent new ones being created. This goes to the very core of who we are as people, what you would call our 'souls', and yet it's entirely predicated upon the unimpaired operation of our materialist brains. We can even observe the brain working using MRI machines, seeing different networks of neurons activate when a person thinks.

Given these facts, it's completely logical to conclude that our brains are the source of our consciousness. From that we can deduct that when our brains cease functioning our consciousness does too. That explains everything we can observe and nothing else is required.

Intangible souls and afterlife's are not required to explain anything regarding our consciousness. To add anything more is quiet superfluous.

Dades

zyndacyclone wrote: »

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

For future reference, insulting people who hold different opinions to yourself is not acceptable in this forum.

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I don't really know how a computer works, but I know that smashing up the inner bits will cause it to cease working forever. There is no "materialistic philosophy" only observation. Philosophy comes into play when someone suggests something that is a leap from the obvious. The obvious being that we stop working when we're dead.

antiskeptic

Dades wrote: »

I don't really know how a computer works, but I know that smashing up the inner bits will cause it to cease working forever.

Man put it together so it follows that man can pull it asunder. The same cannot be said either of biological life, nor can it be assumed that 'you' is mere biology. It's your materialism that makes the leap across the canyon of silence on these subjects.

There is no "materialistic philosophy" only observation. Philosophy comes into play when someone suggests something that is a leap from the obvious. The obvious being that we stop working when we're dead.

You do realise that this view of yours is itself a philosophy - albeit clearly wonky: "It's obvious (to me) therefore true".

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

Man put it together so it follows that man can pull it asunder. The same cannot be said either of biological life, nor can it be assumed that 'you' is mere biology. It's your materialism that makes the leap across the canyon of silence on these subjects.

That's equivalent to saying it's your materialism that deems that birds flight is due to aerodynamics and not invisible giants picking them up and carrying them. The level of denial you display really merits thorough psychological examination.

Waking-Dreams

Ignorance isn't a crime, sadly.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's based upon a number of facts:

"I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works

How is this established. I don't mean by defining it so in the first place then finding out "Hey Presto" it is so

My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.

Clearly predicated on the first being fact. And so not yet a fact for the purposes of this discussion.

There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life

Not relevant. Silence is silence - not evidence either way.

The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.Tough cookie, we all die. Been fun all the same though.

This is an opinion piece.


___________


So, a single claim to establish as fact. So go establish.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

That's equivalent to saying it's your materialism that deems that birds flight is due to aerodynamics and not invisible giants picking them up and carrying them.

It is? The word equivilence has taken on new meaning since I last looked it up.

The level of denial you display really merits thorough psychological examination.

Sink sunk.

goingpostal

I would tell the child that the person is dead, and that they are not coming back, and that they have been buried in the ground, or cremated. I think children are at least as well able to cope with grief and loss as an adult is. In many ways they are more resilient and can see things more clearly than adults can. They are young, that doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots or emotionally more brittle than adults. Telling them that the person has gone to some place that we have no proof exists, is pointless.

Pygmalion

Not sure entirely which bit to quote, but I'm sure he'll know I'm talking to him :P.

You seem to be of the opinion that since we can't give definitive proof either way that either possibility is equally likely.
However not believing in an after-life or a soul requires no massive, unfounded assumptions to be made about the nature of the universe, nor does it require any widely accepted (and heavily tested) physical laws to be broken.
Believing in such a thing on the other hand requires incomprehensibly large assumptions to be made on faith.

Saying that not believing in this requires faith suggests you have an odd view of what "faith" actually is.
Keep in mind no-one here is saying we have definitive proof, just that there is no compelling reason to believe in such things.
On the other hand saying that there IS a compelling reason to believe in such things requires faith or strong evidence, the first one I will reject and the latter has never been presented to me.

Handsome Bob

I think it's best to be honest with the child and just say the lost loved one is no longer with us and that beyond this world, we just don't know what happens. I've known children who have lost family such as their mother, who have been given the religious answer, and they still wake up crying at night for their mother. Why give them an answer that doesn't really give them any comfort and an answer that they may end up resenting you for a few years down the line?

magicbastarder

i've drawn up a shortlist of conclusions so far from this thread:
1. there is nothing that cannot be denied with some obtuse rhetoric.
2. goalposts are mobile.

you are welcome to pick your own conclusion from the two listed.

strobe

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've drawn up a shortlist of conclusions so far from this thread:
1. there is nothing that cannot be denied with some obtuse rhetoric.
2. goalposts are mobile.

you are welcome to pick your own conclusion from the two listed.

3. not even a thread started to discuss how best to help explain the death of a loved one to a small child is immune from Skeps "that is faith too.....empiricism isn't so great" gerrymandering........

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

You do realise that this view of yours is itself a philosophy - albeit clearly wonky: "It's obvious (to me) therefore true".

A rejection of somebody elses unfounded philosophy is not a philosophy.

If someone told you humans became butterflies after they die would your rejection of this be a philosophy?

ShooterSF

I think it best to tell the child the whole circle of life option. I would never expose a child in greaving to the concept that a loved one stands before the Christian god to be judged and sent to heaven/hell for eternity. That's bordering on abuse.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

"I" am the product of my consciousness which is an emergent property of the way my brain works

How is this established. I don't mean by defining it so in the first place then finding out "Hey Presto" it is so

Without wishing to get into the technical details, humans have been aware for some time that if a human brain is damaged or removed, that the same humans have trouble thinking and generally being "aware" of themselves. This basic observation didn't start with people like Phineas Gage, but he's certainly as good a starting point as any other.

I do realize that this connection between brain and thinking is entirely empirical, and therefore, that it cannot be proved. However, I must ask you to ride with me on this one.

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

My brain will rot when I die, so my consciousness will die with it, and "I" will die.

Clearly predicated on the first being fact. And so not yet a fact for the purposes of this discussion.

Until you can show me a brain that's dead but which has failed to rot while not being artificially preserved, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to go out on an empirical limb here and claim that the balance of probability suggests that death will result in my brain being consumed by bacteria, and that this lack of a brain is positively and generally correlated with a lack of consciousness.

Empirically, of course. So I could be completely wrong and there may indeed be many people running about the place, each one fully conscious, but each one having a brain which has rotted or which has disappeared entirely.

Perhaps Ezekiel 37 has already happened, but nobody has noticed yet!

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

There are no reliable accounts of people dying and coming back to life

Not relevant. Silence is silence - not evidence either way.

Quite relevant when one considers that the most prevalent religious fairy tale in our society suggests not only that people are likely to come back to life, rotted brains or not, but that people certainly will come back to life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The ways suggested by religious people in which "I" can stay alive after I die are so obviously completely made up, that I cringe to think that they are believed by adults with whom I share the open road.

This is an opinion piece.

Quite a useful opinion all the same though.