Personally, I think there's a fair bit of reason to believe that both Zen training and hospice experience are useful to facing one's own death. Cultivating awareness of impermanence is central to Buddhist thought. Zen includes such traditions as composing one's own death poem [1] and specific meditations on death [2].
I also found spending time in a hospice to be useful. Anything unknown is hard to think about and possibly scary. Being in the presence of death made it more real for me. And I'm not alone in this; a hospice program founder has an excellent talk [3] and book [4] on what people can learn from hospice.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_poem
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara%E1%B9%87asati
[3] http://longnow.org/seminars/02017/apr/10/what-dying-teach-li...
[4] https://www.amazon.com/Five-Invitations-Discovering-Death-Li...
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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.
>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.
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"
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.
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.
What is the "reality of the situation" in regards to death that they are so privy to?
[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.]
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