http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2885663.stm


Who ever told you Judaism doesn't believe in an afterlife? http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows that Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism have removed all references of the afterlife from their texts, while Conservative Judaism interprets such references non-literally. Nor is this just confined to modern Judaism; my christian upbringing impressed upon me the importantce of sects like the Sadducees, and the New Testament has passages of jews criticizing Christ's claims of the afterlife.

EDIT: also, funeral rites does not signify religion.

To my long-winded friend:

Anselm and Gandhi come from fairly different intellectual traditions. Using one to justify the other breaks down pretty quickly. Using these as premises:

1. God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. God is bound by truth. That which binds the most primary forces in the universe is that which nothing greater could exist by our conception. Therefore, God is truth.

2. God is truth. Truth is a self-evident tautology. Therefore, God is a self-evident tautology.

Anselm himself would reject this in a heartbeat. Not the self-evident tautology (he supports that quite explicitly), but the equation of God with truth. His objections are rather important when one considers the implications of the reduction.

So, starting with Anselm...

Unity is better than disunity, so God is a singular entity. So far, so good.
Knowledge is better than ignorance, and full knowledge is better than partial knowledge, so God is omniscient. As the standard of knowledge itself, sure, truth personified can omniscient.
Free will is better than a lack of free will. And...there it goes.

It's possible to reject free will as superior to the lack of it, but you won't like the implications. It's the death of morality. Morality is based on a system of choice. Animals are distinctly amoral. You don't punish an animal because it makes wrong decisions. You condition an animal to make the right decisions. So...things like the Geneva Convention go away. War and torture are basically ways of gaining the influence needed to condition other humans, right? Also, animals aren't killed for gross transgressions of the moral code. They aren't moral. They're killed when they become dangerous, because that placates the masses. Or they're in pain. Or they're old. Or they're too expensive to care for. Or they're more desirable as fur coats. Usually all of this is against their will, but that's ok.

There's another possibility--you simply reject free will as a defining characteristic. In that case, you go vegan (can't murder because you like the taste of something--meat isn't nutritionally necessary) and reject the insanity defense in court.

Do not confuse "resurection of the dead" with afterlife. They are two completely different things.

What exactly is your understanding of burrying people if not religious?

Funeral rites do not require religious significance or belief in the afterlife.

Or do you think that when an atheist dies, his friends and family just dump the corpse in a ditch and forget about it?

I think you should look into that, because I am sure there are much more efficient ways you can handle the death of people than just adhering to old social customs based on Christian doctrine. I would assume that most environmentally conscious atheists would cremate their dead and not bury them.

I've been busy, so I'll have to respond to the longer posts later, but for now I'd like to address this...



Why in the world should we be interested in helping humanity? What inherent reason do I have to care about you or anybody else in the world, for that matter? Would my life really be that much worse if some people on the other side of the world were not around?

For some reason, we all care about people as individuals, not for the collective. I could make a video begging for money because for poor children because "it would help humanity," and I would likely not get a dime. However, if I made a video which detailed the life and struggles of an individual poor child, people would feel a true desire to help. Your suggestion breaks down in situations like these - people don't care so much about helping humanity, they are interested in the individual value of a person.

What reason do any of us have to feel that way? In reality, it is probably better for humanity if all of those poor children were allowed to die - one less mouth to feed, should be our motto if we follow that philosophy. Luckily, we don't.

edit: How many animals bury thier dead? All I could find were elephants.

From wiki

Environmental reasons

Others prefer cremation for environmental reasons. Some are concerned that during bodily decomposition body fluids and embalming chemicals could contaminate the Earth. Some locations have found that long-buried bodies are now causing groundwater contamination . Arsenic, used as an embalming chemical in the 19th and early 20th centuries, has been known to cause serious pollution later on.

Another environmental concern is that traditional burial takes up a great deal of space. In a traditional burial the body is buried in a casket made from a variety of materials. In America the casket is often placed inside a concrete vault or liner before burial in the ground. While individually this may not take much room, combined with other burials it can over time cause serious space concerns. Many cemeteries, particularly in Europe and Japan as well as those in larger cities, are starting to run out of space. In Tokyo, for example, it is almost impossible to find a traditional funeral plot.

One item of concern has been that the exhaust systems of cremation ovens may contribute to air pollution. In response crematorium manufacturers have built computerized control systems that regulate the exhaust systems to keep crematoriums from contributing to air pollution. Additionally some crematoria remove all plastic handles and fittings from a coffin before cremation and these are disposed of separately for the same reason.

although looking it up some more I see the best option is to donate your body to your favorite scientific institution. I also find the american athiest symbol very interesting.

I'll spare the poor guy some posting time.

Your best bet for understanding this argument is to adopt suspension of disbelief (or, in this case, suspension of belief) and look at it from the opposite angle--religions are created to systematize what people believe should be true about our lives. It holds great precedent. Christianity has been used to justify whole cultures of aggression and whole cultures of pacifism as well as individuals who broke from the cultural mold using the same religion as their basis. Islam has been used to justify whole cultures of aggression as well as individuals who broke from the cultural mold using the same religion as their basis. And Judaism. And Confuscianism. And Taoism. And Hinduism. And the Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, and Iberian pantheons. The only major world religion I can think of that isn't guilty of such multi-faceted duality is Buddhism, and if I really looked, I might find some minor exception even to that. People are quick to dismiss one side or the other as radicals, but...really, if a modern Christian were going to argue with a Scholastic philosopher about what can and can't be gleaned from the Bible and nature alone, they'd get trashed like a rabbi preaching in front of an Iranian mosque.

Argue what you want about the propriety of one interpretation of a religion or another, but you have to concede that all religious interpretations are going to be colored by the desires and non-religious indoctrination of the interpreter. Modern atheistic socialist states are quite humanitarian and pacific by nature. Sorry. That's just the way it is. They're closest relative, North American democracies, are, likewise, fairly humanitarian and pacific. By contrast, secular oligarcies in the Middle Eastern OPEC area are...still belligerent towards the existence of Israel, even the notably free-spirited Turkey. There is no correlation between the presence of any particular religion and any particular cultural stance on civil rights or foreign policy.

Let's repeat that once more. People skim long posts. There is no correlation between the presence of any particular religion and any particular cultural stance on civil rights or foreign policy.

Now, let's turn around and dissect your own argument...people won't do good without the presence of some sort of objective moral standard, namely religion, and most especially Protestant Christianity. You used the example of starving children on the other side of the world. In this case, we have a li'l issue. The Bible doesn't say to help them. The Biblical direction is to 1) give enough (preferably all) that you have to your local community so that there will be neither poor nor rich among your local community, and 2) send people abroad to teach the Gospel and baptize those who believe. The idea that we should take care of the poor worldwide is more a result of your secular American indoctrination.

Atheist. I'd assume you're mispelling it intentionally, but you're not that sort of person.

As for funeral rites... yes, the best option is organ donation followed by donation to research institutions, but that's not what I meant. What I meant was the practice of funeral ceremonies, readings, eulogies, and so on. Those aren't practiced exclusively by religious people, or for religious reasons.


There is in fact a variant of Utilitarianism, called negative utilitarianism which doesn't focus on maximizing happyness, but on minimizing suffering. Under certain consequences this leads to the rationalization that yes, the best outcome is to euthanize the human race. Most modern proponents of negative utilitarianism don't, however, believe that - they believe in minimizing the suffering coming from the frustration of one's preferences. The will to survive is, in most cases, greater than the wish to be freed from suffering, hence it's not moral to euthanize people. I don't subscribe, however, to that philosophy.

The reason why we have an interest in keeping humanity alive is that, generally speaking, more people allows for a higher standard of living. The standard of living in a planetary society where goods, information and services are shared between a few billion people is inherently higher than the standard of living in a social group of about fifty people. Technology cannot sustain itself without a large cadre of human beings, and despite all automation, there is a number of things which we would not be able to automate (Artistic creation being the major one). Hence, society is best served by having as many humans around as our resources are capable of sustaining; letting people starve when we're all perfectly aware that their existence is economically sustainable is immoral.

Another reason is game theory. If everyone acts immorally, society breaks down - this is bad for everybody. If everyone acts morally, happyness is maximized for everyone involved. Some people acting immorally in a mostly moral society will reduce the happyness of moral people proportionally, and those people acting immorally will benefit more. Moral acts are beneficial to everyone, while immoral acts are only superficially beneficial to the immoral person, and only under the right circumstances - Hence, helping humanity - on whatever scale - is moral, as it maximizes happyness (Particularly when you account for the reputation and social advantages of altruism coupled with human predisposition to benefit others - warm fuzzy feelings inside - which some people experience more than others).

I see, the reason it came up was because of the evidence of earliest man having burials (there is still an argument about Neanderthals) so in that context actual ceremonies and the like aren't relevant as they are completely unknown.

I see to basic problems with your argument. The first is that you are speaking in collective terms, rather than individual terms. The second is that you are making the mistake of using Christians as examples for Christianity. In reality, people do a lot of idiotic and outright cruel things in the name of God; that does not mean that God is idiotic and cruel. When we're considering Christianity for the sake of discussion, we should talk about what the bible actually says about things, rather than the fowled-up examples of people who claim to follow the bible.

Still, I am not arguing that Atheists or others do not follow a moral code. I'm arguing that the fact that we all follow a universal moral code even though there seems to be very little reason to do so should make us stop and think. Where did we ever get the ideas we have about what is moral/immoral?



Actually, the bible repeats several times the need to help the poor, and also the need to care for children. The Gospel of Luke focuses on this very topic, and it's repeated by Jesus several times. It is also a theme of the Old Testament. If you're interested, I can provide a pretty good list of verses a little later (at the moment, I'm supposed to be working).

All that is true, but is missing the point. (as I read it)... The question is not about helping humanity but rather seeing an importance in human life above other things. I.e. some "human spirit" the existence of which is constantly being questions with the findings of non philosophical sciences. Anything humans do, there is also some animal that does the same thing to some extent.





Measuring happiness is about as subjective as you can get, and if often defined by societies. Many women in Muslim countries are happy in a burka and unhappy outside of one. (if interviews on NPR can be trusted) Many people gain happiness from following the dictates of the society precisely because they are accomplishing something from outside themselves, as apposed to following whatever whim they have.


In the scientific community, they have many standards for successful animal populations or characteristics, and as far as I know, happiness isn't really one of them. I'm assuming thats the reason why they came up with "avoidance of suffering" but I'm not as big a fan of that because its formed in the negative. Applying those standards to humans however, if often undesirable.

In other words, going off of utilitarian happiness, is just another form of a religion.

Again, what reason do I have to be worried about another individual's personal will? Why should morality not be defined by what I want, rather than what they want?



This is actually not quite true. There is a happy medium, as we can observe in the natural world. If a group has too few creatures they cannot perform as much work, but if there are too many creatures the resources must be spread too thin. In order to find a happy medium and ensure they are as strong as posible, the weakest members are left and allowed to die (or sometimes outright killed), while the stronger members continue together. This way, they find the balance and they're able to say strong without having to share their resources with lost causes.

Humans, however, are the opposite. When people are opportunistic and take advantage of those who are weaker in order to further themselves, we call them immoral. We would rather persecute the survivors, and spread our resources to the weak and lost causes. That still doesn't seem like it's the best thing for collective humanity.



This is an interesting definition of morality, but it still doesn't quite fit for the reasons above (morality does not always seem to line up with what is good for humanity).

Mitbull raises a question and a few points in my mind.

1. Do ecological systems have the same principles of economics in them, such that there is always an increase in wealth within the system.

2. Nietzsche and Ayn Rand very much object to the idea of defining my morals by what other people want. If everyone did what was best for themselves society as a whole would be better, and humanity would rise to the level of everyone being elite. --- Fictional example.. in the world of X-men, its better that people embrace their powers rather than run from them because of concerns for the non mutated.

An ecological system will tend to increase biomass to the maximum levels sustainable with available resources.It reaches a point where it finds some limiting factor (Almost always sunlight or the availability of water) and then growth plateaus at some point, spiking or falling with the evolution of more adapted predators or more efficient producers. Economics works in much the same way. Neither is, of course, a zero-sum game, unless you consider the Sun and the Earth's tectonic activities to be 'players'.

Actually, the central theme of the X-Men is mutants embracing their powers (Often because they don't have a choice - they are what they are - and using those powers to help both humans and mutants alike; the villains are consistently either those who believe in human or mutant supremacy.

Nietzchean/Randian scenarios aren't really very attractive to anyone who isn't part of the elite, and they necessarily involve too much suffering and too little happyness to be compatible with either utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarianism is necessarily based on altruistic pursuit.

What mitbulls is asking is, essentially, why anyone should be moral - My standard answers are: To live with one's conscience (Human beings are, on the whole, predisposed towards protecting other human beings. This is most likely an evolutionary trait), to live well in one's society (There is a very valid retribution of social feedback when one does something altruistic, specially at the personal level - to say nothing of being afraid of imprisonment, etc.) to generate a better society (And thus, improve the survival chances of one's genetic material), because if everyone acted that way, human life would be better than otherwise, for everyone, because one needs a moral foundation that doesn't stem from fear of punishment, because Utilitarianism works in real-life situations (Medical triage is the canonical example) and ultimately, to spread the moral system itself so that society, and therefore your life and the lives of those carrying your genetic material can be better than they would otherwise be - There is a reason most major religions include altruism and philantropy - Because any memeplex that doesn't won't survive for long or become very popular.

Its practical, mostly. Dead things smell and spread disease; burying bodies stops both problems. Anyone can understand the basic principles. Funeral rituals don't have to be religious either; they could just take the form of a formalized prosses of mourning a friend, with no sacred overtones whatsoever, or could be magical rituals designed to prevent the dead from rising as a zombi.

Not really...

Practical is to burn the bodies or create mass graves like we do for garbage. Creating caskets and tombstones, and burrying perfectly good ojbects (such as spears and weapons) with the dead, is far from practical.