UK finds new fuel source to undercut Russian stranglehold on Europe

[Bereta_Eder]

Funerals help "institutionalize"/procedurize? (argh I dont know the english word) griefing....
personally when they have 2000 years tradition behind them, I tend to trust them. But grief itself is a very personal process, IMO.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Irrelevant. Machines still don't bury their dead, humans do.

I'll program a machine to bury or cremate the dead (seriously, do you have something against burning the dead?) just like humans and elephants.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

You keep believing that, little Sava.


Sava?

Sava bien, merci! Et toi?

Sava bein aussi!

Yes
When Christians weren't burning people alive for being the wrong kind of christian they were busy inventing liberalism...

[notyoueither]

Where the definition say imposed from without?

I say, just like you're trying to redifine spiritual to be synonymous with religious.

No, it is not possible for a human to be spiritual but not religious, because the words mean the same thing - something who believes another person is sacred is assigning a religious value to that person. All that spiritual belief was called religious not that long ago, but people wanted to really make sure that people knew that their beliefs weren't the same as organized religion.

So my main question is why do you believe spirituality and religion are different? Is it so you can say, well I don't do anything like what those crazy bastards do?

Nothing of the sort. I accept the existence of spirit without accepting any creed. That's what I'm telling you.

I think you're doing a disservice to the English language. Spirituality existed a long time before the rise of religion. It's an important distinction in archaeology, sociology, and history.

No priests, no temples, no holy word or other dogma... these are important things that someone who tells you they are spiritual is not telling they accept. Being spiritual is telling you that a person accepts there is more to the universe than rocks, photons, and space. They aren't telling you much else by the lable. You could enquire if you're curious. If someone says they're religious they're telling you a little more. If they say they're Catholic they're telling you a lot more again.

[Aeson]

Why would you feel attached to the remains of a person if you believed that there is nothing else afterwards for them?

There is my memory of them. There are things which I associate with them.

It's just a body husk, is it not?

It's a very closely (perhaps the closest) related physical item to who they were, and who they are remembered to be.

Even trinkets associated with a loved one can have great meaning without needing religion to tell us they have meaning.

And why do you think ancient burials based on emotional ties did not have an element of spirituality?

Spirituality is much broader term than religion. You could prehaps make a case that emotional ties is a form of spirituality. It's definitely not a religion though. And wwhat you label it doesn't much matter outside of your symantic argument where you're trying to take everything (memory, emotion) and claim it's religious. Why you want to debase your religion this way by making it simplly a causal physical process is beyond me.

My emotional attachment to a person is not logical (or at least not derived from my own logic). It may not even be a conscious thing. But it exists and is not religion. I don't need God or a priest to tell me that I love someone. I love them. I care about them. I care about things associated with them. Because i have a memory of them, a concept of them ... it doesn't matter if they still exist otherwise or not. I will cherish that memory.

Basically, yes. I simply cannot wrap my head around why atheists would consider a respect for dead bodies to be important, aside from cultural conventions that arose due to a religious foundation - which is fine, if you want to say that you like the Christian foundation of funeral rites, but don't believe in God that's one thing, but claiming that there is an atheistic reason for respecting dead bodies makes no rational sense at all.

You just aren't listening. I already gave you a very simple 3 steps to respect for the body that has nothing to do with religion.

You're also ignoring that respect for the dead must have come before religious ceremonies for the dead. (Definitely way before Judeo-Christian religions existed.)

[Imran Siddiqui]

I say, just like you're trying to redifine spiritual to be synonymous with religious.

You mean how the word spiritual had been defined like forever until folks were like, I really want to distinguish myself from the big churches. Really, 'spiritual but not religious' is way for "spiritual" folks to look down on other folks who have spirituality in the context of an organized faith (and yes, I do enjoy bursting the bubble - y'all are just the same as us).

Nothing of the sort. I accept the existence of spirit without accepting any creed. That's what I'm telling you.

You don't need to accept creeds to be religious. Hinduism has no creeds, for one (Eastern religions tend, as a whole, to be very decentralized - Hinduism in particular, but also Buddhism, Shinto, etc, etc).

No priests, no temples, no holy word or other dogma... these are important things that someone who tells you they are spiritual is not telling they accept. Being spiritual is telling you that a person accepts there is more to the universe than rocks, photons, and space. They aren't telling you much else by the lable. You could enquire if you're curious. If someone says they're religious they're telling you a little more. If they say they're Catholic they're telling you a lot more again.

A lot of people consider paganism to be a religion. Most pagan faiths don't have priests, temples, holy words, dogmas, etc. Pantheism has been around for millennia (at least since the Stoics in Greece).

The problem is that you are equating religion with Western monotheistic faiths and stopping there. Let's think about this for a bit - when the Beatles went to India to study under the Yogi (whatever his name was), do you think they had creeds, temples, holy words, and dogmas? Heck, Yogis aren't even equivalent to priests - they are just wise dudes, no different than reading Kant (well, slightly different as the lesson is different ).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Spirituality is much broader term than religion.

Only if you narrowly define religion. I've already gave you the base word for religion (from the Latin) means treating something as sacred. Isn't that exactly what you are saying? Cicero basically considered religion to mean to consider carefully (religio divided into its component parts re and lego, which means 'read again' and theologian Paul Tillich defines religion as "the state of being ultimately concerned").

You're also ignoring that respect for the dead must have come before religious ceremonies for the dead. (Definitely way before Judeo-Christian religions existed.)

Why do you think that burials were not religious (or, for your benefit, spiritual)? Do you not think they took care because they believed the body was in some way sacred and not merely the same as an animal?

And, of course, religious faith, in general, existed far before Judaism. There is, after all, studies in Prehistoric religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion) ("it encompasses Paleolithic religion, Mesolithic religion, Neolithic religion and Bronze Age religion.")

[notyoueither]

You mean how the word spiritual had been defined like forever until folks were like, I really want to distinguish myself from the big churches. Really, 'spiritual but not religious' is way for "spiritual" folks to look down on other folks who have spirituality in the context of an organized faith (and yes, I do enjoy bursting the bubble - y'all are just the same as us).

I see, you're touchy and a bit defensive about it. That explains a bit.

Actually, spiritualism in history, sociology, and archaeology as opposed to religion has a distinct meening. It hinges partly on organization.

Believe me, or don't; don't care. I have an explanation for where you're coming from in this, and am content with that.

You don't need to accept creeds to be religious. Hinduism has no creeds, for one (Eastern religions tend, as a whole, to be very decentralized - Hinduism in particular, but also Buddhism, Shinto, etc, etc).

Really? Hinduism has no rules? Fancy a burger in Mumbai? Decentralised does not mean completely lacking Gods, holy men, places of worship and rules.

A lot of people consider paganism to be a religion. Most pagan faiths don't have priests, temples, holy words, dogmas, etc. Pantheism has been around for millennia (at least since the Stoics in Greece).

Paganism can get quite organised. Pantheism necessarily has Gods. Someone telling you they are spiritual has not told you they accept God or Gods.

The problem is that you are equating religion with Western monotheistic faiths and stopping there. Let's think about this for a bit - when the Beatles went to India to study under the Yogi (whatever his name was), do you think they had creeds, temples, holy words, and dogmas? Heck, Yogis aren't even equivalent to priests - they are just wise dudes, no different than reading Kant (well, slightly different as the lesson is different ).

The problem seems to me to be that you're equating spiritual with religious.

Yogi's are pretty free wheeling, and while associated with several faiths I would expect they adhere to the faith they profess as well or better than the rest of the members of those faiths. If there are some who do not profess a faith, good on 'em! They'd possibly be closer to my own position.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, spiritualism in history, sociology, and archaeology as opposed to religion has a distinct meening. It hinges partly on organization.

And here's the point - religion as originally defined did NOT have an organization component.

Really? Hinduism has no rules? Fancy a burger in Mumbai? Decentralised does not mean completely lacking Gods, holy men, places of worship and rules.

I know Hindus who eat meat and even worship one God and consider themselves faithful. I'm not even joking. Depending on where you go in India, you can have beef, chicken, mutton, goat, and be considered Hindu.

Pantheism necessarily has Gods.

Does it? If you treat everything as divine, is anything (yes, I know I just paraphrased the Incredibles, but it works)

Someone telling you they are spiritual has not told you they accept God or Gods.

Does not the same apply when someone tells you they are 'religious', even in the narrow sense of the term? Buddhism professes belief in no gods.

The problem seems to me to be that you're equating spiritual with religious.

You can blame the English language for that as both were treated as one not that long ago.

Yogi's are pretty free wheeling, and while associated with several faiths I would expect they adhere to the faith they profess as well or better than the rest of the members of those faiths. If there are some who do not profess a faith, good on 'em! They'd possibly be closer to my own position.

The Yogis that Western bands visited did not usually profess a faith but were more like wisdom folk (the guy on the mountain if you will).

---

I realize we are arguing about pedantic silly stuff though - my original inquiry was for an atheistic reason for respect for human remains (when I was an atheist I never really had one). Obviously someone who considers themselves spiritual isn't going be able to necessarily answer that question (or they can guess at it, I figure, but not be able to definitive give one).

[Aeson]

Only if you narrowly define religion. I've already gave you the base word for religion (from the Latin) means treating something as sacred. Isn't that exactly what you are saying?

We speak English, not Latin. Your use of "religion" is not how the term is commonly used.

Also you are backpedaling mightily from your initial claims that respect for the dead is Judeo-Christian in orgin.

Cicero basically considered religion to mean to consider carefully (religio divided into its component parts re and lego, which means 'read again' and theologian Paul Tillich defines religion as "the state of being ultimately concerned").

And philosophy encompasses all of science ... but if you're studying physics you don't say you're a philosophy student because that's not a useful way of describing your studies.

Why do you think that burials were not religious (or, for your benefit, spiritual)? Do you not think they took care because they believed the body was in some way sacred and not merely the same as an animal?

I never said burials were not religious (or not spiritual). (It's possible that he first burials were simply for sanitation, no one will ever know.) I said that respect for the body had to come before there were religious burials. Religious burials are simply a method of displaying respect for the body. That is important since you are trying to turn it on it's head and claim religion is the reason for respect for the body. Reality is that respect for the body is likely a factor in what that lead to religions being formed, not the other way around.

And, of course, religious faith, in general, existed far before Judaism. There is, after all, studies in Prehistoric religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion) ("it encompasses Paleolithic religion, Mesolithic religion, Neolithic religion and Bronze Age religion.")

So stop claiming that people's respect for the dead was adopted from Judeo-Christian morality. It's obviously a much, much older view that the body holds significance even after death.

[Aeson]

I simply cannot wrap my head around why atheists would consider a respect for dead bodies to be important, aside from cultural conventions that arose due to a religious foundation

I wanted to go back to illustrate how you've moved the goalposts. You started out saying atheists wouldn't have any reason to respect the dead. Why delineate based on belief in a deity? Your use of "religion" later is so broad as to have plenty of room for those who have no belief in a deity, so atheists wouldn't be pre-empted at all.

[molly bloom]

And, of course, religious faith, in general, existed far before Judaism. There is, after all, studies in Prehistoric religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_religion) ("it encompasses Paleolithic religion, Mesolithic religion, Neolithic religion and Bronze Age religion.")

I have to question what the meaning of religion is, if it encompasses what we know of creeds such as Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity (for the most part text based, with rituals, food taboos, special days and so on) with what we DON'T know about what Cro-Magnons or Neanderthals intended with their burials or wall paintings or dustings of ochre or pollen.

They didn't leave us any instructions, so we don't really know.

[MrFun]

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wanted to go back to illustrate how you've moved the goalposts. You started out saying atheists wouldn't have any reason to respect the dead. Why delineate based on belief in a deity? Your use of "religion" later is so broad as to have plenty of room for those who have no belief in a deity, so atheists wouldn't be pre-empted at all.

This is one of the silliest things I've read. Either that, or you've so confused what atheism with agnosticism that for some reason you think its normal for people who are atheists to believe in sacredness (based on what, exactly?).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also you are backpedaling mightily from your initial claims that respect for the dead is Judeo-Christian in orgin.

x infinity. As I clarified in my VERY NEXT POST, that I was referring to Western moral norms about respect for the dead, re: kucibro, considering that's where he lives.

YOU were the one who expanded the discussion to all religion in your quote of it: Post #68. And now your circle around to Judeo-Christian for some ridiculous reason when the discussion had moved on. Why didn't you say "moving goalposts" back then, if that's what you thought?