The Comfort of Woo - what do we replace it with?

Bannasidhe

My Dad died as the Angelus rang out on the 21st Oct 2019.

And it got me thinking. Not about the possibility of the existence of a deity but at the comfort of the rituals built around belief in a deity and what do we, as non believers, have in their stead.

I'm not talking about the comfort brought about to those left behind - trust me, I will be doing all I can to not roll my eyes everytime I hear something about eternal life and gone to his maker over the coming days - but the very real comfort I saw brought to a dying man today.

Now my Dad was a typical a la carte Irish Catholic of that generation who came to adulthood in the early 50s. Swore unbending allegiance to the RCC while being a bit loose in the actual observance of it's tenets and utterly failing to see how there was any kind of contradiction in what they claimed to believe and what they actually did.
He was also one of those members of the older generation who eventually diverged greatly from the instructions issued from the pulpit while still retaining his adherence.
He made the journey from pro-life homophobe to not only voting for Marriage Equality but to insisting he be photographed by his local polling station proudly wearing a Together for Yes badge and asking that the photograph be used to encourage the older generation to vote for Repeal for their great-grand daughters. And it was.

Which bring me to my wondering. My Dad was not having an easy death. He was worried about his dog, the whereabouts of his wallet (I had both in my care...), how much should he tip the care staff....and as his ability to speak left him the fear grew in his clouded eyes and his unconscious fight to live played out in the disturbed movements of his body.

His last hours were an ad for the need for dignity in death. It was torture to watch him being tortured by continued living.

We wracked our brains to try and work out what we - or he - was missing. Why was this unconscious man fighting so hard?

And then my sister said "should we call a priest?", the thought had never occured to me. We did, and the priest arrived within 15 minutes. I tactfully left the room lest I succumb to involuntary eye rolling.

I came back to a man at peace. A simple ritual performed for a man who was no longer in any state of awareness still brought him restfulness.
Perhaps he needed to feel absolved - but how he could have even known the ritual happened is beyond me.

He died peacefully an hour and a half later. It might have been woo. I think it's woo. But it wooed him to stop fighting and rest at last.

And I thought to myself how powerful this woo is. I hope that should I ever need something to ease my passing I have some kind of thing that says "it's ok to go now" but somehow I don't think science is going to provide that...

smacl

Firstly very sorry for your loss. My own dad died a couple of years ago and it took quite a time to get over.

My feeling with the woo thing is it depends very much on how you were raised. My father was a life long atheist and didn't seem to suffer from fear of death so much as frustration from physical decline and attendant lack of independence. He was living with us when he died after a long spell in hospital and missed living alone. My mother in law, a reasonably traditional Catholic, is currently in a home owned by nuns and does get comfort from her religious practice. Horses for courses.

Myself and my wife have talked about it and are of a mind to take (or get given) a load of happy pills to make the final push rather than ĺinger as burden and financial drain on the kids. Whether we manage to achieve this is something else again, but that's the plan.

Deepest condolences once again. We'll all muddle through however we muddle through.

nozzferrahhtoo

Amazing to see you posting here so soon after it. The feelings must be very fresh. Hope you're ok. My own father is going in for a new knee on 1/11/2019 so I am concerned and similarly wondering what can be done to allay his terrors and concerns. He too is not a subscriber to any woo. So I am working with what I have.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And I thought to myself how powerful this woo is.

I am not so sure it is. Rather I think it is merely tapping into something else which is itself very powerful.

Specifically I think it taps into the human's brains penchant for story. I, and a few others, suspect that much that seems powerful about things like woo is actually explained by how our brain perceives the world through story.

For example the suspicion we share is that things like Meditation, Hypnotism, Placebo and so forth work because they are small tools by which we.... permit seems to be the best word..... ourselves to change the story we are telling ourselves in a given moment. It is perhaps not that placebo actually reduces pain for example, but perhaps we merely change the story we are telling ourselves about our suffering in that moment.

So it is not really that the "woo is powerful" so much as it was your father who was powerful at telling himself stories and being guided by and controlled by those stories. Such that perhaps the completion of that story arc was so deep seated a need for him that he was literally capable of fighting longer for life until such time as it was resolved.

The woo was likely not what was powerful here therefore. HE was. And speaking only for myself I know in your place I would draw some comfort and pride and respect and even awe from that. And that you, regardless of what you thought of that woo yourself, were in a position to help him finish the tale. A great gift to have been able to give indeed.

So when you ask if at your own time to go will you have something similar given you do not expect science OR woo to provide it? To answer that I suspect you need explore the stories that your brain DOES use in your life. And understand what their resolution will be, or what the conclusion of their story arc might be. You should be the source of that conclusion. Not science or religion. And knowing you, I bet it will be a good one

Hotblack Desiato

Genuinely sorry for your loss Bannasidhe.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He died peacefully an hour and a half later. It might have been woo. I think it's woo. But it wooed him to stop fighting and rest at last.

It's the thing his brain was conditioned over a lifetime to accept, or expect.
But equally I've no doubt a dying person would find the presence of the wrong flavour of woo merchant to be distressing.

And I thought to myself how powerful this woo is. I hope that should I ever need something to ease my passing I have some kind of thing that says "it's ok to go now" but somehow I don't think science is going to provide that...

I don't think it will, but in the absence of religious conditioning, is it needed? I'd like to hear the experiences of those who have lost non-believing relatives and how it went for them right at the end.

Also I'm surprised the hospital weren't either suggesting calling the priest or did it themselves (this being Ireland.) After all, it's supposed to be the reason that pretty much the first thing you get asked booking into A+E however minor the ailment, is what religion you are.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Amazing to see you posting here so soon after it. The feelings must be very fresh. Hope you're ok. My own father is going in for a new knee on 1/30/2019 so I am concerned and similarly wondering what can be done to allay his terrors and concerns. He too is not a subscriber to any woo. So I am working with what I have.



I am not so sure it is. Rather I think it is merely tapping into something else which is itself very powerful.

Specifically I think it taps into the human's brains penchant for story. I, and a few others, suspect that much that seems powerful about things like woo is actually explained by how our brain perceives the world through story.

For example the suspicion we share is that things like Meditation, Hypnotism, Placebo and so forth work because they are small tools by which we.... permit seems to be the best word..... ourselves to change the story we are telling ourselves in a given moment. It is perhaps not that placebo actually reduces pain for example, but perhaps we merely change the story we are telling ourselves about our suffering in that moment.

So it is not really that the "woo is powerful" so much as it was your father who was powerful at telling himself stories and being guided by and controlled by those stories. Such that perhaps the completion of that story arc was so deep seated a need for him that he was literally capable of fighting longer for life until such time as it was resolved.

The woo was likely not what was powerful here therefore. HE was. And speaking only for myself I know in your place I would draw some comfort and pride and respect and even awe from that. And that you, regardless of what you thought of that woo yourself, were in a position to help him finish the tale. A great gift to have been able to give indeed.

So when you ask if at your own time to go will you have something similar given you do not expect science OR woo to provide it? To answer that I suspect you need explore the stories that your brain DOES use in your life. And understand what their resolution will be, or what the conclusion of their story arc might be. You should be the source of that conclusion. Not science or religion. And knowing you, I bet it will be a good one

You could be on to something there. He was a great man for stories and most of those bore only a passing resemblance to the truth.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Genuinely sorry for your loss Bannasidhe.



It's the thing his brain was conditioned over a lifetime to accept, or expect.
But equally I've no doubt a dying person would find the presence of the wrong flavour of woo merchant to be distressing.




I don't think it will, but in the absence of religious conditioning, is it needed? I'd like to hear the experiences of those who have lost non-believing relatives and how it went for them right at the end.

Also I'm surprised the hospital weren't either suggesting calling the priest or did it themselves (this being Ireland.) After all, it's supposed to be the reason that pretty much the first thing you get asked booking into A+E however minor the ailment, is what religion you are.

The thing that struck me was that he appeared to be completely unaware of his surroundings (I say appeared as I cannot say for certain), on increasingly large doses of morphine, and extremely distressed - but as soon as the priest finished became calm.

I should add that my Dad was as deaf as a post so would have been unable to hear what was being said even in the best of his health.

That is what fascinated me so much. How the woo worked on a man (albeit a man conditioned to believe that brand of woo) when he was unlikely to even know the woo had taken place. But I have to say the woo did work. The only factor that had changed between my leaving the room that contained a dying man raging and returning 5 minutes later to a man dying peacefully was, well, woo happened. It was to all intents and purposes instantaneous.

I have no doubt he believed there was a lot of things he had done during his life that required 'absolution' - and he'd be right - and according to his belief system he received that 'absolution' so could die peacefully. And that would be understandable if he had been aware of receiving absolution. I would have though no more about it (weeelll, maybe a wee patronising thought to myself about opium for the masses if I'm honest).

Lack of awareness is the bit that got me thinking. I had been there 5 hours at that point. He had not shown any signs of awareness for about 4 hours. So did he know and if so how did he know? And if he didn't know what happened to change the manner of his death in that 5 minutes?

There was no sign of institutionalised religiosity in the hosp - perhaps because it is private. We couldn't bear putting him through the trolley nightmare in a public one (we had that experience last year).

Hotblack Desiato

I read a good article recently about dying, it said that we should not fear the dying process, the vast majority of people die 'peacefully'. I'll try to find it.

As the brain begins to shut down the ability to experience or exhibit distress is going to be lost at some point. The timing of this could be a coincidence, or he had more awareness than you thought.

e.g. it's easy to tell when a form of mumbling is a religious one, and if it's well known to you then you don't even need to hear the words, just the rhythm*. Whereas everyday conversation needs the vast majority of the words to be intelligible.

* Just another of the ways religion taps into the brain.

smacl

Just a thought in terms of awareness, I wonder whether the rite the priest performed included physical aspects such as anointing which someone with a religious upbringing might associate with the clergy?

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

e.g. it's easy to tell when a form of mumbling is a religious one, and if it's well known to you then you don't even need to hear the words, just the rhythm*. Whereas everyday conversation needs the vast majority of the words to be intelligible.

But he couldn't hear the mumblings...

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is what fascinated me so much. How the woo worked on a man (albeit a man conditioned to believe that brand of woo) when he was unlikely to even know the woo had taken place. But I have to say the woo did work. The only factor that had changed between my leaving the room that contained a dying man raging and returning 5 minutes later to a man dying peacefully was, well, woo happened. It was to all intents and purposes instantaneous.

You know I have heard people say almost the same things you just did here above. But about homeopathy. Or something similar.

There are two main reasons things like homeopathy work. The first is placebo, which is the one most people know about. It is unlikely to apply in your case if you are correct that your father was entirely unaware a placebo was being administered at all.

The other is a little less often known and is what we call "return to the mean". Essentially what this means is that people resort to woo or nonsense or some alternative option only in their most desperate moment. Things get worse and they do not try it. Things get worse again and they do not try it. Then things get so bad they crack and they say "Ok, let us try thing idea here".OR in your case after some time of being unsure what to do the option "should we call a priest?"

Because they waited so long, they often crack just at the point when things were going to pan out and get "better" anyway. Either "better" in terms of the patient was about to improve or become well, or "better" as in the turmoil stage of their passing was about to ease.

From reading your first post, but more so from reading THIS one, I somewhat suspect that is what is in play here. It is hard to accept when an action seemed to have a powerful effect, that it might have just been about to happen in that moment anyway and it was all just coincidence. But often this is the case. It is unfortunately also hard to test as you can not re-wind time and run the experiment again without the intervention.

And stories of the efficacy of the "cure" that someone tried are self selecting. For every story like yours there are stories where someone tried the "cure" sooner than the return to mean, and it did nothing therefore, or they did not try it in time and the patient improved on their own so they never got around to it. The problem is we never hear either of THOSE story types. We only hear the ones where the coincidence scored a "hit".

And if affects people. My sister continues to spread Vicks Vaporub on the soles of her feet every time she gets a cold, convinced it works despite it almost never doing so. All because the FIRST two times she tried it, it appeared to work instantly. No amount of failure since appears to dissuade her of the efficacy of the treatment.

KWAG2019

Sorry for your loss. Truly. It’s a vulnerable time. In months to come look back at the moment with someone who has seen many deaths. Sometimes there is peace, sometimes not. The rites of the RCC comfort some and have no impact on the struggle to live of others. There is no magic spell, not in the words or the oil. Just human fear and instinct and biological programming. Gentleness matters. To him then and to you now.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You know I have heard people say almost the same things you just did here above. But about homeopathy. Or something similar.

There are two main reasons things like homeopathy work. The first is placebo, which is the one most people know about. It is unlikely to apply in your case if you are correct that your father was entirely unaware a placebo was being administered at all.

The other is a little less often known and is what we call "return to the mean". Essentially what this means is that people resort to woo or nonsense or some alternative option only in their most desperate moment. Things get worse and they do not try it. Things get worse again and they do not try it. Then things get so bad they crack and they say "Ok, let us try thing idea here".OR in your case after some time of being unsure what to do the option "should we call a priest?"

Because they waited so long, they often crack just at the point when things were going to pan out and get "better" anyway. Either "better" in terms of the patient was about to improve or become well, or "better" as in the turmoil stage of their passing was about to ease.

From reading your first post, but more so from reading THIS one, I somewhat suspect that is what is in play here. It is hard to accept when an action seemed to have a powerful effect, that it might have just been about to happen in that moment anyway and it was all just coincidence. But often this is the case. It is unfortunately also hard to test as you can not re-wind time and run the experiment again without the intervention.

And stories of the efficacy of the "cure" that someone tried are self selecting. For every story like yours there are stories where someone tried the "cure" sooner than the return to mean, and it did nothing therefore, or they did not try it in time and the patient improved on their own so they never got around to it. The problem is we never hear either of THOSE story types. We only hear the ones where the coincidence scored a "hit".

And if affects people. My sister continues to spread Vicks Vaporub on the soles of her feet every time she gets a cold, convinced it works despite it almost never doing so. All because the FIRST two times she tried it, it appeared to work instantly. No amount of failure since appears to dissuade her of the efficacy of the treatment.

Just to be clear, I don't think there is any 'magic' in the woo. When the woo works that is, imo, down to psychological conditioning. Taught to believe it works - so the mind interprets it as working.


But I do wonder, if we as non-believers, are too quick to dismiss things as coincidence when they do not fit our personal narrative.
Could we be guilty of ignoring the evidence that X was happening, then Y was introduced, and Z happened because we do not approve of 'Y'?
Is our (lack of) belief creating a bias in our assessment of the evidence?

The woo would not work for me because I do not believe the woo. Anyone's woo.
Hindu/Muslim/Jewish woo would not work on a Roman Catholic as it is the wrong woo - and vice versa.
But when the 'correct' woo is presented to a mind pre-conditioned to accept that woo then there are occasions when the woo most certainly does work. And when it does it is a good thing in that it brings peace at a crucial psychological moment. It may be little more than a more sophisticated version of when Mammy kisses a small child's boo-boo better but we all know kissing the boo-boo better can be very effective when dealing with a screaming toddler.

Which bring me to my original point - what psychological comfort/trick/boo-boo kissing is available to us non-believers as we reach the moment when we are about to leap into the great void forever?
What psychological 'there there, it will be ok' pat on the head do we have that will bring comfort?
Are we so arrogant that we believe ourselves to be above such simple things as a psychological trick that nonetheless brings comfort?

sbsquarepants

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You could be on to something there. He was a great man for stories and most of those bore only a passing resemblance to the truth.

The best ones only ever bear a passing resemblance!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But he couldn't hear the mumblings...

You probably don't know that for certain though. It's like you don't actively hear when you're asleep but your brain is still processing the sounds, if your smoke alarm goes off you'll hear it. It could be that subconsciously he felt the need to hear those words and was afraid to let go until he did.

I personally wouldn't delve too deeply into the whys or hows of the priest calming him down, you can never know for sure, i'd just be be thankful that he did.

When it gets to that stage all you really want is for it to end as quickly and peacefully as possible, if that means telling a few porkies or some mumbo jumbo or other, then so be it. That would be my attitude anyway.

Bannasidhe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The best ones only ever bear a passing resemblance!



You probably don't know that for certain though. It's like you don't actively hear when you're asleep but your brain is still processing the sounds, if your smoke alarm goes off you'll hear it. It could be that subconsciously he felt the need to hear those words and was afraid to let go until he did.

His eardrums were badly damaged in a car crash many years ago and the dog ate his superduper very bloody expensive hearing aids so I'm pretty certain.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But I do wonder, if we as non-believers, are too quick to dismiss things as coincidence when they do not fit our personal narrative.

I think for me it is never that I dismiss it at all. It is more that I have not been given a single other substantiated alternative to select from. Where as things like "return to the mean" "false patter recognition" and "subjective awe at coincidence" all all heavily substantiated and demonstrated in many contexts.

Until I am offered substantive alternatives it is not that I am dismissing alternatives, it is that I have not been given any TO dismiss.

In fact the opposite is true in that I seem to be more open to explanations than some other skeptics I talk to. For example I am much more open minded on the abilities of the brain to influence states of the body and mind than many I speak to.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which bring me to my original point - what psychological comfort/trick/boo-boo kissing is available to us non-believers as we reach the moment when we are about to leap into the great void forever?
What psychological 'there there, it will be ok' pat on the head do we have that will bring comfort?

For me personally the question contains the answer. The vast it is a endless void IS the comfort for me. That there is nothing to worry about and that it will in fact therefore "be ok".

The only assurances and comfort I need or want when my time comes is that my actual passing will be without suffering as much as possible. The passing itself is for me not a concern.

All that said though, sometimes when I am asked "What can we replace X with without religion or other woo" the first question I always ask is SHOULD we replace X or do we need to? Perhaps in our rush to find ways to alleviate grief over the death of others, or fear of our own death, we miss the question of whether we should in fact be doing that at all.

And I have yet to be convinced it is a good thing to be doing in and of itself. Certainly not by the means we often do it, such as lying to ourselves about it and essentially ignoring the issues.

In terms of grief I think it is something best faced and dealt with, rather than pushed under a rug of "They are in a better place" or "I will see them again some day" lies.

And in terms of our own mortality, I think we do not tend to face it until forced to by it's imminence. We do not explore it, think deeply on it, discuss it, account for it as often or as comprehensively as we could. It is something we essentially put off considering as long as we can. And I wonder if that is a part of the reason we need lies and reassurances more than we otherwise might when the moment finally arrives. Whereas if it was part of our ongoing life long narrative.... we would not need such drastic platitudes in the moment.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But I do wonder, if we as non-believers, are too quick to dismiss things as coincidence when they do not fit our personal narrative.
Could we be guilty of ignoring the evidence that X was happening, then Y was introduced, and Z happened because we do not approve of 'Y'?
Is our (lack of) belief creating a bias in our assessment of the evidence?

Very probably, but the question remains when we witness something we have difficulty understanding what conclusion do we draw? Mine is simply to say that I don't know what happened there and fully accept that this is reasonable as my mind is a relatively feeble apparatus. I'd also investigate further if sufficiently motivated to do so. Substituting God/Allah/Jehovah did it, or any other attractive magical excuse, does not seem reasonable or sensible.

The woo would not work for me because I do not believe the woo. Anyone's woo.
Hindu/Muslim/Jewish woo would not work on a Roman Catholic as it is the wrong woo - and vice versa.
But when the 'correct' woo is presented to a mind pre-conditioned to accept that woo then there are occasions when the woo most certainly does work. And when it does it is a good thing in that it brings peace at a crucial psychological moment. It may be little more than a more sophisticated version of when Mammy kisses a small child's boo-boo better but we all know kissing the boo-boo better can be very effective when dealing with a screaming toddler.

Which bring me to my original point - what psychological comfort/trick/boo-boo kissing is available to us non-believers as we reach the moment when we are about to leap into the great void forever?
What psychological 'there there, it will be ok' pat on the head do we have that will bring comfort?
Are we so arrogant that we believe ourselves to be above such simple things as a psychological trick that nonetheless brings comfort?

I'd imagine it is going to be a very personal thing and vary substantially. For me the notion that I will choose the time and method of my own demise gives me a degree of comfort as death becomes a last conscious choice rather than succumbing to the inevitable. Again, whether it pans out this way or not is something else.

As an atheist, I think one's philosophical outlook also plays an important role here. Having been very keen on philosophical Taoism in the past I think there's great value in thinking of ourselves to an extent as components of a whole rather than solely as a 'self' occupying the universe that surrounds us. This corresponds to pantheism without an actual godhead and diminishes the relevance of death.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are we so arrogant that we believe ourselves to be above such simple things as a psychological trick that nonetheless brings comfort?

A psychological trick - describes religion to a tee, imho.

Bannasidhe

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A psychological trick - describes religion to a tee, imho.

It's the Las Vegas glitzy razzle dazzle smoke and mirrors end of the trick franchise.

sbsquarepants

Bannasidhe wrote: »

His eardrums were badly damaged in a car crash many years ago and the dog ate his superduper very bloody expensive hearing aids so I'm pretty certain.

The dog you were minding?:D:D

Bannasidhe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The dog you were minding?:D:D

Didn't happen on my shift. :cool:

kelly1

Bannasidhe, I'm genuinely sorry for the loss of your father. I know what it's like since I lost mine over a year ago.

But it's unfortunate that what your father would have called faith, you call 'woo'. Don't you see that as a mockery of your father's faith? Can you not just call it faith?

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

But it's unfortunate that what your father would have called faith, you call 'woo'. Don't you see that as a mockery of your father's faith? Can you not just call it faith?

One person's faith is woo to another person though, and a person's faith no more deserves respect than their opinion. What deserves respect is the right to openly hold and express that faith, not the faith itself. If you consider criticism of religious beliefs to be a form of personal attack perhaps you could explain why a Christian might consider heresy or apostasy a crime?

riffmongous

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The thing that struck me was that he appeared to be completely unaware of his surroundings (I say appeared as I cannot say for certain), on increasingly large doses of morphine, and extremely distressed - but as soon as the priest finished became calm.

I should add that my Dad was as deaf as a post so would have been unable to hear what was being said even in the best of his health.

That is what fascinated me so much. How the woo worked on a man (albeit a man conditioned to believe that brand of woo) when he was unlikely to even know the woo had taken place. But I have to say the woo did work. The only factor that had changed between my leaving the room that contained a dying man raging and returning 5 minutes later to a man dying peacefully was, well, woo happened. It was to all intents and purposes instantaneous.

I have no doubt he believed there was a lot of things he had done during his life that required 'absolution' - and he'd be right - and according to his belief system he received that 'absolution' so could die peacefully. And that would be understandable if he had been aware of receiving absolution. I would have though no more about it (weeelll, maybe a wee patronising thought to myself about opium for the masses if I'm honest).

Lack of awareness is the bit that got me thinking. I had been there 5 hours at that point. He had not shown any signs of awareness for about 4 hours. So did he know and if so how did he know? And if he didn't know what happened to change the manner of his death in that 5 minutes?

There was no sign of institutionalised religiosity in the hosp - perhaps because it is private. We couldn't bear putting him through the trolley nightmare in a public one (we had that experience last year).

Something similar happened when my Da died, it was the middle of the night so we were in bed and were woken up to go down as he had become very.. distressed.. and to me seemed completely unaware of what was happening (also before we went to bed he seemed to have lost awareness), but yet after we came to him and said goodbye he calmed down and a little while later went unconscious and then passed on shortly after that.

Bannasidhe

kelly1 wrote: »

Bannasidhe, I'm genuinely sorry for the loss of your father. I know what it's like since I lost mine over a year ago.

But it's unfortunate that what your father would have called faith, you call 'woo'. Don't you see that as a mockery of your father's faith? Can you not just call it faith?

Out of respect for his beliefs I sat in the front row during his removal and funeral mass.
Out of respect for my own lack of belief I sat quietly and did not participate in the rituals going on around me.

You may consider it 'faith', but I am acutely aware that he most certainly did not follow the rules laid down by his religion so the argument could be made that he did not respect his faith so why should I?
But yet I sat there. Being respectful during rituals that are so utterly meaningless to me that they qualify as woo.
His beliefs do not trump my lack of belief.
He may have called it 'faith' (although that is a term I never heard him use, he always said he was being a 'catlick'), to me it's woo. He had his truth. I have mine.

splinter65

Just dropped in to point out that hospitals no longer call a priest or any other cleric for a patient irregardless of what is written on patients notes.
If a patient wants to see a cleric, or be attended to by a cleric at any stage then the patient or family have to organise that themselves.
You need have no fear of being terrified by the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick if you haven’t asked for it.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah right. How come we have so many reports on this forum of patients (including myself) being bothered by god-botherers after putting down "no religion" on their admission form?

Pherekydes

splinter65 wrote: »

...being terrified by the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick if you haven’t asked for it.

What's this now?

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah right. How come we have so many reports on this forum of patients (including myself) being bothered by god-botherers after putting down "no religion" on their admission form?

So you specifically put down no religion on your admission form recently and then found yourself during your hospital stay repeatedly bothered by a priest at your bedside trying to force communion on you?
How strange.
There aren’t enough priests now to call to the hospital and spend a long time going from ward to ward as they used to, so they’ve said that you or your family have to seek out the priest if you want his attention.

eviltwin

There's a comfort in not believing too. I don't think we talk about that enough. I used to be terrified as a child that I would die before I got the chance to confess my 'sins', that I was always being watched by whoever was up there, that the bad things that happened to me meant I was actually a bad person who deserved them because my prayers for help went unanswered.... I could go on but I feel incredibly liberated not having belief anymore.

Bannasidhe I'm so sorry for your loss. X

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

There aren’t enough priests now to call to the hospital and spend a long time going from ward to ward as they used to, so they’ve said that you or your family have to seek out the priest if you want his attention.

Well I'd hope that's now the case

My incident was in late 2005, it probably didn't help that the only bed they could find for me (then aged 34, broken leg) was in a geriatric ward. I wasn't alone though, the guy opposite me was 21

I told yer man politely to go away but he still insisted on laying his hand on me (over the covers, thankfully) and muttering his mumbo-jumbo.

I should've rung the patient assistance bell and had that cnut run out of there.

Always Tired

I thought the whole thing about being an atheist is you are too smart/badass to need such things. Can't have it both ways man, you just gotta face death alone if you don't have faith.

Not saying either way is right or wrong but I do find it interesting that so many people who have had near death experiences, from different countries, even children who would never had heard of a near death experience, report seeing and hearing similar things. If you have ever beem om nderf dot org it's pretty fascinating. To me these experiences suggest there is some sort of afterlife. Our narrow short existence suffering on this daft lump of rock being all there is seems doubtful. And disappointing.

Bannasidhe

Always Tired wrote: »

I thought the whole thing about being an atheist is you are too smart/badass to need such things.

Person writes a post after the death of their father.
Other person responds with above.

All I can say I'll take a badass atheist over an unempathetic believer in an afterlife any day.

Not that I mentioned afterlifes, my post was specifically about the time when death was imminent.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well I'd hope that's now the case

My incident was in late 2005, it probably didn't help that the only bed they could find for me (then aged 34, broken leg) was in a geriatric ward. I wasn't alone though, the guy opposite me was 21

I told yer man politely to go away but he still insisted on laying his hand on me (over the covers, thankfully) and muttering his mumbo-jumbo.

I should've rung the patient assistance bell and had that cnut run out of there.

15 years ago.

splinter65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Person writes a post after the death of their father.
Other person responds with above.

All I can say I'll take a badass atheist over an unempathetic believer in an afterlife any day.

Not that I mentioned afterlifes, my post was specifically about the time when death was imminent.

Sorry you’ve lost your father. So many things left unsaid. So many things you wish you hadn’t said. It will get better. It’s a comfort to you that he left peacefully, in the end, no matter how that peace came about.

johnnyskeleton

Sorry for your loss Bannashide, glad to hear he had some comfort in the end.

As to whether its because of programming or just the comfort of the ritual, its hard to say. I guess its no coincidence that religions are usually all over lifes great moments of happiness, sadness and confusion. I like to think its because people needed religion in these times and so religion filled the vaccuum, rather than the other way around. But certainly people feel comfort knowing that things are happening "as they should be", and the fact that these things almost become routine for priests maybe makes their manner businesslike and calming.

NIMAN

Sorry for your loss OP, but I do think that for many the ritual is important and will help them die more peacefully.

The believers would often say that come the time of your death, many non-believers might get a change of heart. Who knows, hopefully my time is a long way off to worry about that!

But I do know from family experience that the presence of a priest can help a lot. I have seen a very distressed granny who was totally inconsolable and in deep pain following the death of a child go from screaming the house down for an hour to sitting and chatting rationally on the sofa once a priest appeared. In the great scheme of things, the arrival of the priest changed nothing, except her attitude to her loss.

I would totally agree though about people leaving this life in a distressed way. I do hope that by the time I get to the end, we will have laws in place that allow me to die without pain if that is my choice.

Again, sorry for your loss and I hope you are getting on ok since.

robindch

Mod:

Always Tired wrote: »

I thought the whole thing about being an atheist is you are too smart/badass to need such things. Can't have it both ways man, you just gotta face death alone if you don't have faith.

Your splendidly insensitive comment reminds me of an elderly lady within my own extended family who, from time to time, reminds us all that she has no fear of death because she has hope, mind you. Hope. HOPE. That's HOPE in the future and Trust in the Risen Lord and none of you lot have HOPE and how can you face the day without HOPE? There's some world-class projection going on there and I don't think I've met anybody more scared of death than her. Out of respect for her delusions, we leave her ramble on, secure in the knowledge that if she had to face her life without her religious crutches, she'd collapse in a heap.

The forum charter has nothing to say about insensitive posts, though basic human civility and your friendly forum moderators suggest that, in the future, you might like to think twice before posting something similarly tactless to what you posted above.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And I thought to myself how powerful this woo is.

Religious has innumerable years to hone and polish itself as the best kind of end to all kinds of beginnings, the door through which the faithful good must pass, the narrow path to the summit. The truth is simpler, as it's just one group of people selling the prospect of avoiding death to a different group who fear it. As sales pitches go, it's not an especially hard sell.

Calling in the priest was certainly the right thing to do and when Popette's time comes - should any of the family be there - I trust that they'll remember to call a priest as you did.

I'm sorry for your loss, but the journey from card-carrying allegiant member to a badge-carrying supporter of marriage equality suggests that in the end, he did the right thing and the right thing for which he'll be remembered.

Good on him.

nozzferrahhtoo

Always Tired wrote: »

Can't have it both ways man, you just gotta face death alone if you don't have faith.

Speak for yourself I guess, as so far everyone I have ever known who has died has done so not alone, but surrounded in friends, family and other loved ones. It sounds like this thread is no different in this. Quite the opposite in fact.

You might want to do it alone, I don't know, but I am not seeing why anyone else "gotta".

Always Tired wrote: »

I do find it interesting that so many people who have had near death experiences, from different countries, even children who would never had heard of a near death experience, report seeing and hearing similar things.

I do not find that too interesting at all. Despite how individual we like to think ourselves as being, the fact is that "under the hood" we all function pretty much the same with not that many differences.

So it does not surprise me at all that people undergoing relatively similar experiences would report relatively similar effects from those experiences, even on opposite sides of the world.

What would be interesting and surprising is if this was NOT the case, and the experiences were massively diverse.

And that is BEFORE you factor in many things like "interviewer bias" and "cultural experience expression" and so forth which would then further unify such experiences.

Also I urge caution before basing any premise on a mere assumption on what a child might or might not have heard of.

Always Tired wrote: »

To me these experiences suggest there is some sort of afterlife.

Why? They were NEAR death experiences. That is....the person did not at all die. How is that relative to an afterlife? An NDE is about as much an experience of the after life as walking up to a plane but not boarding it is an experience of a sun holiday away in Spain.

Always Tired wrote: »

Our narrow short existence suffering on this daft lump of rock being all there is seems doubtful. And disappointing.

Doubtful because it is disappointing? Or doubtful because of some reason you have yet to offer? Because nothing you said in THIS post gives any reasons to find it doubtful.

IF you find it doubtful because you do not personally like the implications of it however.... then that is not grounds for doubt. It is grounds for evaluating your own biases. Because all you are saying in that case is you think there is an afterlife because you do not like the idea of "suffering on this daft lump of rock being all there is".

sbsquarepants

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not find that too interesting at all. Despite how individual we like to think ourselves as being, the fact is that "under the hood" we all function pretty much the same with not that many differences.

So it does not surprise me at all that people undergoing relatively similar experiences would report relatively similar effects from those experiences, even on opposite sides of the world.

You see a very similar thing with the use of psychedelic drugs. People all over the world report very similar hallucinations, some even go so far as to call them beings. I've even met one or two of these beings myself - i don't really see it as any evidence of a hidden world of spirit beings, although i can definitiely understand why some would take that view. I see it as more evidence of the similarity in our brain function. Fire up pathway x and get result y kind of thing.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Doubtful because it is disappointing? Or doubtful because of some reason you have yet to offer? Because nothing you said in THIS post gives any reasons to find it doubtful.

IF you find it doubtful because you do not personally like the implications of it however.... then that is not grounds for doubt. It is grounds for evaluating your own biases. Because all you are saying in that case is you think there is an afterlife because you do not like the idea of "suffering on this daft lump of rock being all there is".

I can't get this either -

"there just has to be something more to life"
"Why?
"eh, just cos"

I can absolutely understand the appeal of an afterlife, but i can't wrap my head around why people would think it even remotely probable - i can't even begin to fathom the thought processes of the ones who find it likely, or a racing certainty.

I don't know what it is, maybe to quote lady gaga you just have to be born that way! Either way, i just can't do it. I see zero reason to even suspect that there would be anything more than decomposition waiting for us after death.

Odhinn

The father died in his own bed in june last year. He had rapidly detiorated over a period of days, and both myself and one of his brothers were in two minds as to whether we should keep him at home or send him into hospital. In an echo of his many brothers end he saw his mother at the end of the bed, and he began to talk exclusively in Irish (all his family had to be taught english), as well as wanting to cut a suit (his father was originally a tailor). He expressed no desire for a priest and past away in his own bed, peacefully, at the age of 86.

Always Tired

robindch wrote: »

Mod:Your splendidly insensitive comment reminds me of an elderly lady within my own extended family who, from time to time, reminds us all that she has no fear of death because she has hope, mind you. Hope. HOPE. That's HOPE in the future and Trust in the Risen Lord and none of you lot have HOPE and how can you face the day without HOPE? There's some world-class projection going on there and I don't think I've met anybody more scared of death than her. Out of respect for her delusions, we leave her ramble on, secure in the knowledge that if she had to face her life without her religious crutches, she'd collapse in a heap.

The forum charter has nothing to say about insensitive posts, though basic human civility and your friendly forum moderators suggest that, in the future, you might like to think twice before posting something similarly tactless to what you posted above.

The post seemed to be about the philosophical question of whether the comfort of faith at the end of life had value and how atheists can handle not having that 'crutch'or whatever you want to call it.

So I gave my opinion on that, and skipped the boilerplate condolences. Because I don't see them as having much meaning when they are from strangers on an anonymous internet forum.

I addressed the question, didnt realize I was required to offer condolences too. But I find it funny how you're up on your high horse flexing your mod muscle about that while you simultaneously call an elderly relation a rambling delusional coward.

I also didn't realize the forum is a battleground with 'believers' on one side fighting the atheists. And that if people on one side think you are on the other they just want to attack you instead of discussing the issue in the OP. So that's good to know, though it's disappointing.

I'm not actually in either camp, I was just saying that in the matter of death, an atheist simply won't have the comfort of faith and they should just be comfortable with that, as like yourself they go through life smugly calling faith a crutch and generally are completely sure that they are right about there not being any afterlife or God or whatever. So if you believe there's nothing else then you just have to face death on those terms. Why is that offensive?

It's not like I said you will go to Hell or something I literally said that I don't think it will matter either way, either there's no God/afterlife and you'll have been right or along, or if there is one I doubt being a nonbeliever would exclude a person from whatever it is, if God required everyone to blindly believe in him/her than he/she was pretty stupid to give humans free will and a brain to question things, and also a bit ridiculously optimistic considering he doesn't even bother to say hello to us to let us know he's knocking about.

I think you have me pegged as some 'believer' so you went on the attack. Tbh I thought atheists would be a little more objective, but what I'm finding here is the same type of aggro you get from bible thumping Christians. Wild.

Always Tired

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

IF you find it doubtful because you do not personally like the implications of it however.... then that is not grounds for doubt. It is grounds for evaluating your own biases. Because all you are saying in that case is you think there is an afterlife because you do not like the idea of "suffering on this daft lump of rock being all there is".

Hang on, anything that can't be proven or disproven would be a breeding ground for doubt, wouldn't it? I mean isn't that kind of one of the foundations of atheism?

Again, you can't have it both ways. Atheists say they doubt the existence of God because of lack of evidence and things like children dying of cancer. Which is fine by me, I can totally understand feeling that way. But just like you said that all I am saying is that I don't like the idea of this existence being all there is, all you are saying is you don't like the idea of there being a God who allows children to die of cancer.

Yeah I do doubt that our existence on this rock is all there is because it would seem pretty pointless. Some people's lives only last minutes. And if that is really the sum total of that individuals existence that seems a lot crueller and stranger than there being a God that allows child cancer, as awful as that situation is. But I'm not going to say it's not possible, there's no way to know for sure, but I can base my belief or theories on whatever I want just as you can. I believe there is an afterlife and I believe in reincarnation because I think human lives are very short and narrow and it would make sense TO ME that there be more.

I am not trying to convince anyone that I'm right about that, if you believe that this human existence is all we got, it's fine by me. And not sure why you're saying it makes ME uncomfortable to consider that may be the truth, when it seems to be making the atheists uncomfortable, in fact that is what the OP is saying! And it is certainly a terrifying, depressing, bewildering idea, to think that, for example, a baby who dies right after birth has no type of existence besides those few breaths. But the atheists seem to always be proud of the fact that they are brave enough to accept that, so just be brave then and don't be longing for the comfort of woo. Stick with your non belief and leave those who believe to our delusional ramblings.

nozzferrahhtoo

Always Tired wrote: »

Hang on, anything that can't be proven or disproven would be a breeding ground for doubt, wouldn't it? I mean isn't that kind of one of the foundations of atheism?

Not really. I do not think things that "can not be proven" and "can not be disproven" are on the kind of equal footing a sentence like yours implies. In fact I would avoid the word "prove" entirely for a variety of reasons.

I could make up literally anything right now on the spot. I will have no evidence for it at all. But it is entirely unlikely you will be capable of DISproving it. That failing on your part would lend absolutely ZERO credence of any kind to the thing I just made up however. And I suspect you would not find yourself plagued with much doubt about "but MAYBE what he said is true". Are you plagued which much doubt that Obama is in fact a lizard alien in a human disguise for example?

So no, I do not find doubt breeding on the grounds of things people appear to have just made up and have offered not a shred of substantiation for. Doubt for me is reserved for things for which there exists SOME substantiation but that substantiation is far from conclusive. There doubt is warranted.

I do not, as you put it "doubt the existence of God because of lack of evidence" because that would, as I described above, suggest there has been SOME substantiation offered upon which doubt could breed.

More accurately therefore my position on the question is I have zero arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to hand upon which to find the concept there is a god even remotely credible. "Doubt" is not the right word here. I lack any basis for belief OR doubt really. The hypothesis is FUNCTIONALLY non-existent to me.

Always Tired wrote: »

But just like you said that all I am saying is that I don't like the idea of this existence being all there is, all you are saying is you don't like the idea of there being a God who allows children to die of cancer.

But have not said any such thing at all I suspect in your rush to reply to my post you have mistaken me for someone else entirely in the thread.

Always Tired wrote: »

Yeah I do doubt that our existence on this rock is all there is because it would seem pretty pointless.

And that is emotional bias and nothing more. And is therefore nothing more than white noise to me. "I believe/disbelieve X because I do not like the implications" is not a rational or coherent thought process to me.

Live, reality and everything does not OWE you a "point" or a reason for being. I fear it is human hubris that acts like it does.

Always Tired wrote: »

I believe there is an afterlife and I believe in reincarnation

I suspected you do alright. But until you or anyone else can offer a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest either of those things is a reality.... again it is just white noise to me. I have little interest in WHAT you believe. My interest in discourse stems from an interest in WHY you believe it.

So far the "why" appears to be little more than "coz it gives me the feelz I wantz". And if that is so, more power to you. But it holds no interest for me.

Always Tired wrote: »

And it is certainly a terrifying, depressing, bewildering idea, to think that, for example, a baby who dies right after birth has no type of existence besides those few breaths.

I do not think it is terrifying, depressing or bewildering at all. Nor do I think it "brave" to believe otherwise. Who these "atheists" are you refer to numerous times in your post is not clear. But I suggest you take it up with them, if you find them, and not me. To be honest while I am happy to be called an atheist by other people, I do not actively reject the term, it is however a term I almost never describe MYSELF with. Again, for various reasons.

Rather than finding it brave to be of the opposite stand point, I just find it unfortunate that the former stand point exists at all. I do not find that the reality is at all "terrifying, depressing, bewildering". Rather I think we as a species have MADE it that way. For no good reason.

And part of the fault of that lies in this need we seem to have to "comfort" ourselves from reality rather than face it. We spend so much time and effort in running away from reality, and hiding it behind lies and stories and platitudes.... that the o nly reason things become "terrifying, depressing, bewildering" is because eventually reality wins and gets through our shields.

An ongoing, open, iterative engagement and discourse with ourselves, others, and the reality around us seems..... at least to me and others I have observed it in..... not to help stop reality from being "terrifying, depressing, bewildering" or helps us cope with it being "terrifying, depressing, bewildering"..... but rather never allows us to fabricate that narrative about it at all in the first place.

The question often comes to us as atheists.... "If you remove god/religion/faith what do you replace it with?". I think it the wrong question to ask first. The right first question to my mind is to ask should they be replaced at all, and do they in fact need replacing. When the stabilisers come off the bike of a child, they rarely ask what you intend to replace them with. They are all too keen to proceed without them, free. If we are to remove the stabilisers of the woo and myth and fantasy of the childhood of our species.... why replace it with anything at all?

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question often comes to us as atheists.... "If you remove god/religion/faith what do you replace it with?". I think it the wrong question to ask first. The right first question to my mind is to ask should they be replaced at all, and do they in fact need replacing. When the stabilisers come off the bike of a child, they rarely ask what you intend to replace them with. They are all too keen to proceed without them, free. If we are to remove the stabilisers of the woo and myth and fantasy of the childhood of our species.... why replace it with anything at all?

Interesting perhaps, but if you go over to the cycling forum, you'll quickly find out that putting stabilisers on a bicycle actually inhibits a child from learning how to cycle both in terms of learning balancing and introducing a fear of falling over. Bikes are a two wheeled form of transport and modern bikes for tots have neither stabilisers or pedals, so rather than adding something unnecessary and potentially harmful, you remove something not yet necessary.

As a life long atheist I think the analogy to religion here is surprisingly apt. My opinion is that introducing the notion of a potential afterlife at a young age heightens the fear of death which of course plays into the hands of organised religion. It is a control mechanism, plain and simple.

Always Tired wrote: »

Yeah I do doubt that our existence on this rock is all there is because it would seem pretty pointless. Some people's lives only last minutes. And if that is really the sum total of that individuals existence that seems a lot crueller and stranger than there being a God that allows child cancer, as awful as that situation is. But I'm not going to say it's not possible, there's no way to know for sure, but I can base my belief or theories on whatever I want just as you can. I believe there is an afterlife and I believe in reincarnation because I think human lives are very short and narrow and it would make sense TO ME that there be more.

Surely you see that something making sense because you desperately want it to be true has more to do with fear and desire than rational thought? If you're looking for a point and you'll excuse naval gazing song lyrics over main stream philosophy I like how Kimya Dawson puts it, "we all become important when we realise our goal is to figure out our role in the context of the whole". More simply perhaps by Kate Tempest, "live, love if you can, pass it on". The risk with a less than totally convinced belief in an afterlife, i.e. agnosticism, is that you'll waste the one life you definitely do have for another that might never happen.

smacl

Always Tired wrote: »

I addressed the question, didnt realize I was required to offer condolences too. But I find it funny how you're up on your high horse flexing your mod muscle about that while you simultaneously call an elderly relation a rambling delusional coward.
;
;
;
I think you have me pegged as some 'believer' so you went on the attack. Tbh I thought atheists would be a little more objective, but what I'm finding here is the same type of aggro you get from bible thumping Christians. Wild.

Mod: If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions for the running of this board we have a feedback thread here.

If you read through the posts on this thread you'll realise that you're the one causing the agro here, so I'd suggest toning it down. Thanks for your attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

smacl wrote: »

Interesting perhaps, but if you go over to the cycling forum, you'll quickly find out that putting stabilisers on a bicycle actually inhibits a child from learning how to cycle both in terms of learning balancing and introducing a fear of falling over.

Good point, you are working better with my own analogy than I was myself.

Yeah my kids used the bikes you describe over here too. Laufrad they are called, which I guess means "Running Bike". So one kid went straight to a normal bike and the other used stabilisers for the transition only briefly.

I guess for the analogy the stabilisers (religion) already happened for our species. So it does not help to think too deeply we might have been better off without them at all in our development, and it likely hampered us.

For me the question is just that when we take them off for our species, we need not replace them at all.

Bannasidhe

Always Tired wrote: »

The post seemed to be about the philosophical question of whether the comfort of faith at the end of life had value and how atheists can handle not having that 'crutch'or whatever you want to call it.

So I gave my opinion on that, and skipped the boilerplate condolences. Because I don't see them as having much meaning when they are from strangers on an anonymous internet forum.

I addressed the question, didnt realize I was required to offer condolences too. But I find it funny how you're up on your high horse flexing your mod muscle about that while you simultaneously call an elderly relation a rambling delusional coward.

I also didn't realize the forum is a battleground with 'believers' on one side fighting the atheists. And that if people on one side think you are on the other they just want to attack you instead of discussing the issue in the OP. So that's good to know, though it's disappointing.

I'm not actually in either camp, I was just saying that in the matter of death, an atheist simply won't have the comfort of faith and they should just be comfortable with that, as like yourself they go through life smugly calling faith a crutch and generally are completely sure that they are right about there not being any afterlife or God or whatever. So if you believe there's nothing else then you just have to face death on those terms. Why is that offensive?

It's not like I said you will go to Hell or something I literally said that I don't think it will matter either way, either there's no God/afterlife and you'll have been right or along, or if there is one I doubt being a nonbeliever would exclude a person from whatever it is, if God required everyone to blindly believe in him/her than he/she was pretty stupid to give humans free will and a brain to question things, and also a bit ridiculously optimistic considering he doesn't even bother to say hello to us to let us know he's knocking about.

I think you have me pegged as some 'believer' so you went on the attack. Tbh I thought atheists would be a little more objective, but what I'm finding here is the same type of aggro you get from bible thumping Christians. Wild.

I am the OP and I do not require your 'boilerplate' condolences. However, I did find your opening sentence remarkably insensitive in the context of my original post and therefore not conducive to discussion.
You came in all rude guns blazing and are now complaining about getting aggro? The irony.

You then went on a tangent about the afterlife. The afterlife is not what this thread was about. It is clearly about how a dying man appeared to find solace from a religious ritual he was highly unlikely to have been aware of at any conscious level.
I have a pretty good idea what it meant to him. That ritual - according to his belief system - granted him absolution for the fairly awful way he had behaved for most of his life. It gave him peace.

I then posed the question what equivalent do non-believers have, if any. I made no mention of 'not being able to handle it' or needing a 'crutch'. A close friend of mine died last year, an atheist. Her last words were 'That's it. I'm dead' - she 'handled it' like a bad ass. But then she was not a person who behaved appallingly during her life so I doubt she felt she needed forgiveness for anything. And if she had regrets she dealt with them while alive.

You did not address the topic.
You misinterpreted the topic and went off on an irrelevant tangent.
Your opening comment made me think 'this guy is being a bit of a dick' - which is against Boards policy across every forum even the bible thumping one. However, I did not report you, I did not sanction you - so obviously I am not the only person who found your opening salvo distasteful.

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I guess for the analogy the stabilisers (religion) already happened for our species. So it does not help to think too deeply we might have been better off without them at all in our development, and it likely hampered us.

I think much like kids with balance bikes we're starting to see a new generation of atheists emerging with atheist parents who don't carry the religious baggage of previous generations. Even though many if not most of them in this country will have a certain amount of religion foisted upon them through the school system it is (in my opinion) highly unlikely to stick.

With respect to the topic in hand, I wonder is the need for the comfort of woo in the first place a result of religious upbringing and the expectation of being judged post-mortem? Like Bannasidhe's friend, I'd hope not to need it.