Hacker News Reader

>Western culture simply understands the reality of the situation.

You mean not waking up again?

I don't see what is so worrying about that?

If one truly believe there's nothing after this life I'd think one should be very calm?

Edit: to be clear, I'm a Christian, - I just happen to be puzzled by why non-religious people are afraid of death (except for worrying about their loved ones and the pain of dying that is.)

>If one truly believe there's nothing after this life I'd think one should be very calm?

At the very least, most people feel a sense of responsibility towards their loved ones, and knowing they will no longer be around to take care of them is a significant source of stress. That is how it was for my father. And if it ever comes to pass where I am terminal but still lucid, it will be the primary source of my frustration as well.

Is the goal of parents raising children not to prepare them to be adults that can take care of themselves? That's the problem with "helicopter parents", they hold on so selfishly to their role as a parent that they stunt their children's growth and atrophy their capacity for autonomy.

There comes a point in all our lives where we become so old that we become burdensome. If the old never died, there wouldn't be room or resources for new life and ideas to be born and grow. In that sense, it is honorable to meet death, because you are making room for new life.

I spoke of the lifelong bond between parent and child. In healthy relationships, that does not end once the child reaches independence. Rather, it grows into a deeper relationship than before. If, when reading that, your mind goes to solely helicopter parenting, that is on you.

No you didn't, you spoke of "responsibility", and being around to "take care of them", which implies an unfulfilled or unending paternalism

In no way does it imply that.

Well, one obvious reason is that it's the loss of everything. Friends, family, loved ones. Future experience, memory, agency. Everything.

If you thought you'd never wake up again, how comfortably would you go to sleep?

I'm of two minds about this. Like most everyone, of course, I have this fear. I ponder the ways it is not adaptive. I find it lessens over time as I consider this.

>If you thought you'd never wake up again, how comfortably would you go to sleep?

If we have no choice but to go to sleep, why would we want to spend those last moments feeling terribly uncomfortable?

If we face the facts that death is a part of life, and that we all must die, what's the practical value in fretting over that fact? (Aside from being wise not to do stupid things that lead to a stupid death)

Excerpting my point out of context like this isn't helpful. I'm responding to the Christian's glib notion that he doesn't understand why atheists worry about dying.

There's no value at all in fretting over death once it's inevitable. There is great value in fretting over possible deaths we can avoid. And regardless, death for atheists is the loss of everything, and loss aversion is a well-studied component of human psychology, so it should be unsurprising even to a Christian that atheists are not particularly jolly about death.

Yes, I understand why atheists are so fearful of death, but also see the illogical and impractical nature of it.

>death for atheists is the loss of everything

Atheist logic should lead to the realization that from an individual standpoint, there is no possibility for the experience of this feared loss, at all. Immediately before the moment of death, you still have it all. Immediately at the moment of death, you have no conscious ability to experience the loss. Therefore the fear is not logical, it's irrational because your "total loss" is something you can never experience.

It's "not logical" only from certain poorly considered priors that have very little to do with how humans work. Emotions aren't supposed to be "logical". Emotions are part of the biological machinery that keeps meat-machines alive and active in the world.

>Emotions are part of the biological machinery that keeps meat-machines alive and active in the world.

Not all emotions are valuable, some are indeed quite harmful and anti social.

Which brings us back full circle to the original point of this comment chain: that western society is extremely emotional about the subject of death relative to other societies. This tendendency leads to unecessary suffering and the prolonging of life at all costs.

The US has come very far from its founding mantra; "Give me liberty, or give me death!" has seemingly been reversed to "anything but death"

How nice of you to bring it back to my exact starting point. It's almost like this whole discussion with you was a waste of my time.

> I'm responding to the Christian's glib notion that he doesn't understand why atheists worry about dying

I'm not glib.

It's an honest question. This puzzles me.

Also I'm Reitan, not "the Christian" and while you don't owe me much respect, some degree of politeness so you don't call me glib is expected here AFAIK.

It seems like I've struck a nerve though and for that I apologise, I just hoped for an answer.

> I just happen to be puzzled by why non-religious people are afraid of death

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-preservation

> Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. It is almost universal among living organisms. Pain and fear are integral parts of this mechanism.

I don't believe that at all. Western culture is strongly influenced by Christian notions like an eternal soul which has life after death. And American culture has a strong element of the pursuit of eternal youth. Contrast that with the acceptance of the transitory nature of existence that's central to Buddhism. Or even things like the Mexican Day of the Dead, where death is celebrated as a part of life.

>Western culture simply understands the reality of the situation.

What is the "reality of the situation" in regards to death that they are so privy to?

That physical damage to the brain results in loss or impairment of consciousness, and that there is absolutely no evidence that total biological death would entail anything but the cessation of this consciousness.

[EDIT: I want to be clear - I am NOT saying that it could never be the case that some form of "being" exists outside of what appears to us as a finite biological existence, I am merely pointing out that we have no evidence of this kind of existence, aside from vague spiritual feelings and experiences which are difficult to evaluate, so the skeptical position is the most honest one for the time being.]

>no evidence that total biological death would entail anything but

You seem very certain of your hypothesis. Is there anything that science has had a harder time defining, quantifying, or understanding than the nature of consciousness as it relates to reality? With that in mind it would seem more in keeping with the spirit of science to remain agnostic ("I don't know"), rather than atheistic ("I know")

>Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

-Carl Sagan