Fussing over the dead?

[Lestat]

Every once in a while I'll have my kids in the car as we drive past the cemetery where my father was buried . He died years ago and neither of my children had ever met him. So for some reason my eldest asks to stop at the cemetery. She wanted to see where her grandfather was buried. Ok. We had time, so after an hour of searching, I was finally able to locate the gravesite and tombstone. What floored me was this...

As I looked around there were many people fussing over their loved one's graves. Elaborate flower arrangements, wreaths, etc. It was obvious that some of these people visit on a regular basis loved ones who had been dead for at least as long as my father. One person was just sitting by a grave as if in deep thought or prayer. My question is, why?

This is not a pro or anti-religion post. Regardless whether you're an atheist or devout Catholic (it was a catholic cemetery), why would you fuss over a grave? Even Catholics believe that when the body dies, you are no longer in it. Your soul goes up to heaven, right? What's the point in spending so much time and money fussing over a spot that is unoccupied? I really don't get it.

[Peter666]

One of the things which distinguished Neanderthal man from previous versions of our species was his deliberate and careful burial of the dead. The fact that your daughter wanted to see the gravesite of your father speaks to the rationality in human nature which distinguishes us from animals. We are capable of thinking of things beyond our senses and animal instincts by pondering abstract thought.

For Catholics it is considered an act of charity to pray for the souls of the faithful departed as a means to alleviate them from the sufferings of Purgatory if they have not made it to Heaven yet. Also, Catholics believe in the resurrection of the dead, when one day our actual human body will be reunited with our souls on Judgement day. Also, the body was blessed during life and before burial, so there is respect for it, like we hold for sacred objects.

Besides, people miss their loved ones and want to be with them again.

[RJT]

Stat,

You’re back from LA. Trip report? Good/bad?

[ QUOTE ]
…so after an hour of searching, I was finally able to locate the gravesite and tombstone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not going to say a word. I take that back - I am gonna lol. You bad.

Anyway, it really is just a matter of bringing the grieving to a different place. I stop by and see my dad/brother’s resting place. Say a prayer, etc. For me the grief is the same at home or at the cemetery.

Now my mom - I think she feels closer there.

As far as primping the site - I think it is more a respect kinda thing. We do it to show we care - that we cared for our loved ones who died. It is really more of a societal/community thing, I think.

RJT

[godBoy]

I've seen images of people holding their dead loved one's in their arms..

How don't you get it?,
If you put yourself in their position and you imagine the death of your child. Could you imagine just dropping the lifeless body and walking away? Of course not..
The memory of your loved one still lives and you want to be near them, even if they are dead and buried.. It is simply an expression of the love you still have for someone.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that your daughter wanted to see the gravesite of your father speaks to the irrationality in human nature which distinguishes us from animals.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">The memory of your loved one still lives and you want to be near them, even if they are dead and buried.. </font>

At best, you are standing over whatever decaying flesh and bone remains. In reality, you are no nearer to them in the cemetery than you would be in the privacy of your home. This is what I don't understand. I would much rather remember my father by looking at an old artifact of his. Holding a watch he always wore for example, than stand over a spot on the ground where I know he isn't there.

Why wouldn't people feel closer to their deceased loved one by sitting in their favorite chair at home?

[Lestat]

VERY profitable trip, thanks.

<font color="blue">Anyway, it really is just a matter of bringing the grieving to a different place. </font>

Exactly. I agree. You are just bringing grieving to a different place, but why is the cemetery such an important place? Why not at home or in your father's/brother's favorite restaurant, etc. Even the church he attented. But the cemetery... I just don't get the significance. There were no doubt many places on earth your loved ones set foot on at one time in their lives. They are no longer there just as they are no longer at the cemetery you visit. Again, this has nothing to do with religious belief (I don't think).

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">One of the things which distinguished Neanderthal man from previous versions of our species was his deliberate and careful burial of the dead </font>

Please don't misunderstand me. I do see the significance of burial rites and rituals. What I don't see, is the significance of visiting the sight of a decomposing body when the loved one isn't even there.


<font color="blue">For Catholics it is considered an act of charity to pray for the souls of the faithful departed as a means to alleviate them from the sufferings of Purgatory if they have not made it to Heaven yet. </font>

Again, this isn't a religious post and I don't mean to question prayer. But you can pray from home or church. In fact, church seems a more appropriate (productive?), place to pray.

<font color="blue"> Also, Catholics believe in the resurrection of the dead, when one day our actual human body will be reunited with our souls on Judgement day. </font>

Really? So Catholics believe they will be reunited with their bodies at some point? I was raised Catholic and never heard this one before.

<font color="blue"> Also, the body was blessed during life and before burial, so there is respect for it, like we hold for sacred objects. </font>

But the body is no longer there. Surely you believe this based on past grave sites which have been exhumed. At best there is decaying flesh and bone. Good for forensic evidence, but little else.

<font color="blue"> Besides, people miss their loved ones and want to be with them again. </font>

This is the point of my post. I take it RJT thinks it terrible that I do not visit my father's grave sight. I do miss him and would love to be with him again, but that's not possible. He's dead. I feel no closer to him going to some place he never went to when he was alive. I'd rather visit a place he frequented when he was alive, or took me when I was a kid.

[Lestat]

My ex is raising the kids Catholic and I'm sure this is where my daughter picked up on the significance of the grave sight.

I don't want to confuse my kids with conflicting views, but I agree with Dawkin's that the indoctrination of children at young ages is not good.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, Catholics believe in the resurrection of the dead, when one day our actual human body will be reunited with our souls on Judgement day.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the ones that die old will be old, the one that died young will be young (even infants)? Or will everyone be 21, 33, whatever... lol. What about those whose bodies that were disfigured or maimed before death? What about the handicap of aging? What is the optimum age? Why doesn't everyone reach that age? Once a terratogen always a terratogen, if you are catholic?

It seems like a very odd doctrine to me, but there you are! That's what happens when irrationality takes over.

[Peter666]

There is no doctrine, but it is postulated that it will be at the age of full maturity but not old enough to be in decline. So probably in the 20's. And the bodies will be in a genetically perfect state, without disease or deformity etc.

Of course, the damned will not be so blessed and will come back in the bodies of horrible beasts. I predict yours will be headless, since you seem so sure of rationality and don't need those useless things like faith and art and abstract thought.

[Peter666]

People don't need to be at the gravesite to pray, but it obviously helps them to think and focus on their loved ones. At home we tend to be very distracted. Also, there are indulgences granted to visiting gravesites and praying for the dead.

I wonder if those who claim to be purely "rational" people would throw grandma in a shredder and fertilize the lawn since it seems to be the most productive and rational thing to do with the remains of the dead. Can't let those nutrients go to waste in a casket.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if those who claim to be purely "rational" people would throw grandma in a shredder and fertilize the lawn since it seems to be the most productive and rational thing to do with the remains of the dead. Can't let those nutrients go to waste in a casket.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you would be amazed how many people dispose of the ashes of the departed in this way! The fact that it is not acceptable to your cultural or religious sensitivities, makes no differences to others.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doctrine, but it is postulated that it will be at the age of full maturity but not old enough to be in decline. So probably in the 20's. And the bodies will be in a genetically perfect state, without disease or deformity etc.

Of course, the damned will not be so blessed and will come back in the bodies of horrible beasts. I predict yours will be headless, since you seem so sure of rationality and don't need those useless things like faith and art and abstract thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, well at least I won't be condemned to party for eternity with an entity that match your conception of god, worse than hitler, amin or stalin in my view. Enjoy!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the damned will not be so blessed and will come back in the bodies of horrible beasts. I predict yours will be headless

[/ QUOTE ]
The precision, granularity and certainty of your predictions is most amazing, to be sure. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Probably rooted in the same psychopathy as the remainder of your beliefs!

[madnak]

It's symbolic. Nothing psychotic about that. People like symbols and rituals, need them for social and psychological cohesion.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">People don't need to be at the gravesite to pray, but it obviously helps them to think and focus on their loved ones. </font>

I think that's sad. The need to be faced with a loved one's tombstone to appreciate they were once alive.

Shredder? No. But many people spread their loved one's ashes over their front lawn or garden. This makes much more sense to me than getting in your car to visit the site of a decomposing body.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's symbolic. Nothing psychotic about that. People like symbols and rituals, need them for social and psychological cohesion.

[/ QUOTE ]


So is it just another tradition for the non-thinking, which is handed down from generation to generation as Dawkin's talks about?

[glorfindel]

This is an insipid form of ancestor worship; a shoddy veneer of veneration, hypocritically hiding the multitude of flaws and failures in our relationship with them.

On a historical note, when I was a young midwestern chap, my grandparents referred to Memorial Day as "Decoration Day." In addition to having the extended family gathering, we all went to the cemetery and decorated the graves of our departed with flowers and flags. My parents and aunts and uncles still do this, but my siblings and I don't participate anymore. Who has time for the dead, when we don't even have time for the living?

[Peter666]

Historically, in Christian countries the dead were never cremated out of respect except in times of disease or plague.

The Freemasons as an affront to the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead purposely cremated their members. This practice resulted in excommunication after that.

[Peter666]

But the cremation burns up so many essential nutrients that plants could use. If the dead were chopped up instead it would be far more beneficial. Don't you have compassion for the flowers?

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would be amazed how many people dispose of the ashes of the departed in this way!

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to suggest that you know that a non-trivial portion of the population disposes bodies this way. How do you know this?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
So is it just another tradition for the non-thinking, which is handed down from generation to generation as Dawkin's talks about?

[/ QUOTE ]

People have feelings. As long as this is true, for better or for worse, it will be important for people to acknowledge and confront those feelings. It's easier to grieve when there's a concrete symbol of loss. And, however arbitrarily, disposing of a loved one's remains in the way they would have wanted is good for peace of mind. The irrational action would be for the mourner to deny human feeling, to live under the fantasy that he's more machine than man. A thinking human being must recognize the impact of his emotions and attachments, and give himself the latitude to deal with them.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I take it RJT thinks it terrible that I do not visit my father's grave sight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know me better than that, Stat. I try not to judge people. I was just busting your stones. Actually, I would find it odd if you did visit your dad’s grave much - if ever. Would make less sense than folk of faith doing it.

Regarding your point - I am not sure grief makes much sense at all, period. So, to look at how folk grieve and wonder about it seems superfluous. Grief is an emotion. Like love, it doesn’t make must sense.

RJT

Btw, the Catholic thing and reuniting with the body is pretty much true. We don't really think about that too much. Personally, I don't think it is stictly literal as it sounds. In the same way that I don't think the Assumption of Mary into heaven (body and soul) is exactly literal. When I say literal I don't mean it isn't true. I just mean that it means more than what it seems. (Hopefully, what I just said made sense.)

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But the cremation burns up so many essential nutrients that plants could use. If the dead were chopped up instead it would be far more beneficial. Don't you have compassion for the flowers?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no issue as to what happens to my body after my death, be it organ donation, medical research, pet food, cremation or whatever.

[Peter666]

Pfft, heretic.

Anyway, what I find funny is how when it comes to things like sexual morality, the "Rational Police" come in advocating human emotion, compassion, and feeling above all moral standards or restraints. But when it comes to dealing with the dead, the same "Rational Police" have hardly any regard for human emotion or feeling for the loss of a loved one.

I advocate putting all members of the "Rational Police" in formaldehyde and dedicating them to science so pre-med students can laugh and snicker at their genitalia like they always do!

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you would be amazed how many people dispose of the ashes of the departed in this way!

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to suggest that you know that a non-trivial portion of the population disposes bodies this way. How do you know this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many cultures that include creamation do that. There are many other ways of disposing of the body culturally, like using scavenger birds. I personally know of a number of people whose relatives ashes were scattered in gardens, including public one or at sea. I guess it beats keeping the urn on the mantelpiece. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I advocate putting all members of the "Rational Police" in formaldehyde and dedicating them to science so pre-med students can laugh and snicker at their genitalia like they always do!

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU HAVE SERIOUS MENTAL PROBLEMS

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, what I find funny is how when it comes to things like sexual morality, the "Rational Police" come in advocating human emotion, compassion, and feeling above all moral standards or restraints. But when it comes to dealing with the dead, the same "Rational Police" have hardly any regard for human emotion or feeling for the loss of a loved one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're grouping a lot of different people together and then selectively interpreting.

Not to mention mischaracterizing. When the atheists propose a constitutional amendment to ban burials, maybe you'll have a point.

[chezlaw]

traditions handed down from generation to generation

ashes in urns

all good

chez

[godBoy]

I don't think that it would be an indoctrination of your children that would make them want to see your fathers grave.

Death raises some very important questions in the mind, questions that I think your children are seeking answers to.
They could also just miss him and want to be near him - they probably do not have the ability to 'feel him' in the chair he used to sit in at home.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't misunderstand me. I do see the significance of burial rites and rituals. What I don't see, is the significance of visiting the sight of a decomposing body when the loved one isn't even there.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, you are not visiting the decaying body that lays under the ground. The gravesite/tombstone itself is, in a way, a monument to the person you loved. So for many people, when they stand at the grave, the feeling of closeness with the spirit of the deceased is stronger than it might be somewhere else.

It's probably similar to why people visit any other memorial. People routinely break into tears when they see a deceased friend or loved one's name on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Why? There's nothing actually there, except a wall with some names written on it. But the monument, like the gravesite, brings the memories of the loved one back. The person does not have to be physically present for the monument to have a powerful effect.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> People routinely break into tears when they see a deceased friend or loved one's name on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. </font>

I make big distinction here. The vietnam wall represents something. It is a monumnet to all fallen soldiers of that war. And this is really my whole point. Such a monument recognizes the service of that person (a soldier dying for his country for example). I also distingiush a 9-11 memorial. This is more of a historical rememberence than of the individual people (at least to me). Lastly, people aren't buried in the Vietnam wall, which shows you don't need a body to mourn or remember.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
And the bodies will be in a genetically perfect state, without disease or deformity etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then i certainly can't be reunited iwth my body, that would jsut be an imitation.

[guesswest]

You associate a person with their corporeal form throughout their life, it's no surprise that the association lingers after death.

It may be irrational, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all - IMO sentiment is more important to human flourishment than rationality.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I make big distinction here. The vietnam wall represents something.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so does the gravesite I think, at least to those close to the person buried there. It is the place where a loved one's body was laid to rest, and as such the place has a powerful association with the actual person for a lot of people.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I make big distinction here. The vietnam wall represents something.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so does the gravesite I think, at least to those close to the person buried there. It is the place where a loved one's body was laid to rest, and as such the place has a powerful association with the actual person for a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even I feel like I'm being somewhat of a nit, so I'll stop after this, but here's what I'm saying...

The spot where a body is laid to rest says nothing about that person, his life, who he was, what he accomplished, or what he meant to his loved ones. Why do you not see that distinction?

The Vietnam wall on the other hand, DOES say something about the person's whos name appears. He was a soldier, he died for his country, etc. Of course, people would get emotional visiting this wall. It is a firm reminder of what those brave men and women did and how they died. A simple gravesite is nothing of the sort.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The spot where a body is laid to rest says nothing about that person, his life, who he was, what he accomplished, or what he meant to his loved ones. Why do you not see that distinction?


[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be a nit myself, but if being physically present at the spot where a loved one was laid to rest, has the effect of bringing back memories of that person to the living... then that spot DOES say something about the deceased's life, who he was, his accomplishments, etc. At least to the loved ones who have those memories. I don't see why it needs to be a monument to some extraordinary sacrifice or accomplishment in order to be valid. If the gravesite is seen as a monument to a loved one's ordinary life, that is enough.

And besides, graveyards are often quiet, contemplative, almost church-like places. To me, it is not hard to see why such a place might be a good location to express grief or to just contemplate the life of the deceased and how their life affected yours.

I guess in the end, a lot of it is symbolic. But then again, so is the entire burial rite. Why visit a grave, keep it neat, plant flowers? It is a symbolic way to show respect for the dead.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]


Even I feel like I'm being somewhat of a nit, so I'll stop after this, but here's what I'm saying...

The spot where a body is laid to rest says nothing about that person, his life, who he was, what he accomplished, or what he meant to his loved ones. Why do you not see that distinction?

[..] A simple gravesite is nothing of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess a simple gravesite is where we say our final goodbye. While they aren't there anymore when we say goodbye, it's the last place we see their human form before it disappears forever into the earth.

So while it may not be a monument to their life, it is a monument to saying goodbye, the final goodbye.

I do get what you're saying however I want my resting place to be a place of beauty, for the people that come to make their peace with my absence.

[posnera]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I make big distinction here. The vietnam wall represents something.

[/ QUOTE ]

And so does the gravesite I think, at least to those close to the person buried there. It is the place where a loved one's body was laid to rest, and as such the place has a powerful association with the actual person for a lot of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even I feel like I'm being somewhat of a nit, so I'll stop after this, but here's what I'm saying...

The spot where a body is laid to rest says nothing about that person, his life, who he was, what he accomplished, or what he meant to his loved ones. Why do you not see that distinction?

The Vietnam wall on the other hand, DOES say something about the person's whos name appears. He was a soldier, he died for his country, etc. Of course, people would get emotional visiting this wall. It is a firm reminder of what those brave men and women did and how they died. A simple gravesite is nothing of the sort.

[/ QUOTE ]


The problem here is that most people didn't have the opportunity to die in battle, or a terrorist attack or some other event which you deem worthy of memorialization. What about an ordinary life? Is that not worth commemorating? I used to go with my dad to see my grandparents and other relatives' graves often. It was a way for us to spend some time together and for him to tell me about my family. I'm not exactly sure why you are so confused by the whole concept.

[Lestat]

I'm not saying ordinary lives aren't worth commemorating or grieving over. I'm asking what is the significance of where you do it? What good does it do to drive to a cemetery to do this? A wall or momunent is different in that it is specifically about a certain aspect of those fallen. If your grandfather was a great jockey, it would make sense to erect a memorial at the local racetrack, so you could remember his accomplishments of whipping them doggies the home stretch. But the grave where he's buried has nothing to do with that. You can just as easily remember him from your home or his favorite tavern over a bottle of his favorite scotch, etc.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking what is the significance of where you do it? What good does it do to drive to a cemetery to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe the association with the earthly body makes it feel like you are "visiting" them, at least symbolically.

Anyway I think the bottom line is that the burial place is a location that holds particular significance to a lot of people. I'm sure there are also plenty of people for whom it holds no special significance, who might find other locations more meaningful. Different strokes for different folks.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Maybe the association with the earthly body makes it feel like you are "visiting" them, at least symbolically. </font>

Well, that's my question... Isn't this irrational? There is no body present and what is there, is a decomposed hideous sight. Surely no one would want to be there if they could actually see the body they were standing over, right?

I understand and it was obvious from my visit to the cemetery that people place signicance on the burial place. But what I'm asking is, why? So far, I haven't gotten what I fell is a good answer. And I don't think I will.

[RJT]

Stat,

You are putting the cart before the horse. You should first be asking 1) Why we bury the dead at all - as opposed to cremation or whatever and 2) Why we place tombstones where we bury the dead?
From your point of view both of these are irrational - no?

Once you get over those two hurdles I would remind you that tombstones are also called monuments.
So the analogy of the Vietnam memorial is not totally off.

The other thing to keep in mind is that many folk - those who believe in an afterlife - pray there. Yes, we can pray anywhere, but in addition to prayer we also “talk” to the deceased. To the atheist, talking to the deceased is totally absurd. To the believer it might be an exercise in futility, but it isn’t a totally outrageous concept.

So why do all this at the gravesite? It has to do with thinking (hoping) that the loved one “sees” us. We go there because it is the “resting” place of our loved one. We don’t think of the decaying corpse. We think of them as we last saw them at the funeral home.

Keep in mind that we “talk” to them while we are other places, too.

Another reason we take our grief to the cemetery and I think this might be one of the biggerst reasons - we see others grieving. The unspoken empathy when we see others there - often people we know - is helpful in easing the pain. The other mourners “know” how we feel.

I am curious how long ago your dad died - or anyone close to you. Were you old enough to have your “heart broken”? Have you felt grief yet? If you have yet to fell this emotion - that might explain your intrigue with us. It still doesn’t make sense, no. But, like I said - does any emotion make sense?

RJT

[Lestat]

My father passed away many years ago and I'm not sure if I properly grieved or not. I didn't cry if that's what you mean, and I remember being surprised that I didn't.

I consider myself emotionally very normal. It's funny, because if you met me, I'm not anything like Dr. Spock. -lol In fact, I'm not even all that logical! I think people miss the fact that I'm often just being a devil's advocate on here.

I completely see why people go to the cemetery. I'm just questioning what the true reason is, and if they've ever really thought about what they're really doing there. If they couldn't go to the cemetery and only grieve elsewhere, would that be a huge problem for them?

Of course, I'm gonna think that talking to the dead is silly, and the concept of a corpse simply "resting", is ridiculous. But you had to have already known that! -lol I was trying to leave theistic concepts out of it.

As to the wall, I still disagree. Places like the wall, or the spot they're building at the 9-11 site are not tombs, but memorials. You can create a memorial for a loved one in your home. One of my best friends was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and was killed during an armed robbery. I still keep some of his stuff and things he gave me in a certain spot in my home. I cherish those items and they are I guess, my memorial to him. And no... After his funeral I never went back to his gravesite.

[RJT]

Stat,

I hate to say this, because you tried hard to avoid it. But, I am not sure we can avoid it. I really don’t think you can take the atheist part out of the equation. I don’t think we can leave the afterlife part out of the discussion. I bet if you polled people at the cemetery, you would find very few (any?) atheists visiting the tombs. The whole cemetery thing in itself should be absurd to the atheist – no? It should be, imo. There should be no reverence towards a corpse.

That is it. It is about reverence.

Another way to look at it:

Let’s compare it to the Church. (Ironically, I don’t think this is bringing religion into the discussion. It is the analogy that is my point.) We talk about the physical church where we go for Mass. We talk about our Faith as the Church. The people are the Church. The important part of the Church is the people. The physical churches we go to on Sundays are not important. Mass can be said in a corn field. The Eucharist is the important part of Mass. Having a beautiful architectural structure for a Mass is really unnecessary. It is nice to have the house of worship, though. It is the same with a grave to an extent. We don’t have to grieve at the cemetery. The cemetery just gives the grieving a physical space.

Another point:

I remember reading or hearing on TV (Oprah, Dr. Phil type show) a story about a woman who was having an unusually hard time in dealing with her loved one's death. To make a long story short it was because the loved one was cremated and ashes scattered. The counselor or whoever told her to make a grave/gravestone for her loved one. Well, once she did that and had a place to go to mourn, her grief was less painful. They used the word closure, but I won’t use it. I loathed that word. The word is ridiculous to me. I don’t think “closure” exists – for me it doesn’t at any rate. But anyway, once she had a place to go to grieve, it helped her. They didn’t say why this was so – it was though.

What about people whose loved ones' bodies are never recovered. I bet there are differences in the grief of the victims' families of 911 between those whose bodies were recovered and those not. Why was there so much time, energy, and dollars spent on the recovery there? It was not all to find survivors. Having a corpse seems to make a difference. Or look at the family of the girl in Aruba. They know she is dead. They want her body – why?


Without trying two-bit psychology, I am not sure that you have felt grief (yet). This might (perhaps not) have something to do with your lack of making the connect. I am not saying you will go to the cemetery once/if you feel grief. But, I think you won’t find it so odd of those who do. I could be totally wrong though.

RJT

[Lestat]

Well, atheists grieve too, ya know.

Excellent points about the dollars and time spent recovering bodies. You're right. I never did understand that. I do however, understand it in cases like the girl in Aruba. Her family might be 99.9% sure she is dead, but until her body is found there is still some chance she is not. If it was my daughter, I'd also want to know 100% that she was dead. Both for closure reasons (which atheists also need), and peace of mind that I could finally stop hoping. This is nuts, but...

My father had been sick for a while, so we had a closed casket funeral. I remember having this tremendous need to see the body. It's weird, but I think I just had to make sure he was really dead. I had to see it with my own eyes. Told ya I wasn't always rational! -lol

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I could be totally wrong though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are. but at least you probed around looking for some possibilities. The big error you made was caused by believing atheists are an alien species, with a different set of emotions and culturally influenced manifestations of them.

Think of all the religions, quite a variety, that burn the bodies in a funeral pyre, never mind the neat ashes-in-an-urn approach. There is nothing innately special about a body in the ground with a rock on top of it. For some that may work as a connection to the memories, for others it may be a favorite poem, song, chair, whatever works.

A religious child who was never to a dirt-rock funeral and only to ash-spread-over-special-place-of-granny type of service would not feel an attachment to the dirt-rock suddenly when they turn 35.

Our personal manifestations of grief/memories may seem 'natural', but they're not.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
… You are(wrong) but at least you probed around looking for some possibilities. The big error you made was caused by believing atheists are an alien species, with a different set of emotions and culturally influenced manifestations of them…

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that atheists don’t grieve.

[Lestat]

Wow, takes me twice the words, to say half as much, and make weaker points!

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…My father had been sick for a while, so we had a closed casket funeral. I remember having this tremendous need to see the body. It's weird, but I think I just had to make sure he was really dead. I had to see it with my own eyes. Told ya I wasn't always rational! –lol

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this seems totally consistent with an atheist perspective. Hardly, irrational. You need/want proof.

I would want to see the body, too. But, not for the proof part.

Also: You might be right about the Aruba girl. But, still there is a different grieving process with and without a body.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
… Our personal manifestations of grief/memories may seem 'natural', but they're not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that our grief process was natural either. Cemeteries are part of our tradition. This whole discussion assumes (at least I assumed) we are talking about people in the U. S. and how we attend to the gravesites of our loved ones.

Grief, I believe, is natural in the sense that love is natural. Our process is not totally natural, though. Much of it has to do with traditional and customs and social issues - and religion.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The whole cemetery thing in itself should be absurd to the atheist – no? It should be, imo. There should be no reverence towards a corpse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think it is all about religion or reverence. My guess is that many athiests visit the gravesite as well, simply because it is a place where they feel connected to the memories of the person they lost. Simply seeing the monument, with the person's name and the years of their birth/death can stir that feeling of connectedness. I'm not sure I see why that is any less reasonable than thinking about the person while holding their watch or sitting at home in their favorite chair. And I don't think athiests don't care what state the gravesite gets in just because they see it as "just a corpse". I'm sure many still plant flowers, pull weeds, etc., simply as a sign of respect to the person's memory, not out of any religious reverence.

And to try once more with the analogy to the Vietnam Wall - if I see a loved one's name on the wall, I am likely to get very emotional. This emotion comes from grief and loss and remembering the loved one, not just from the fact that they died in battle or made a heroic sacrifice. The same thing happens when I see the loved one's name on a more personal monument, their tombstone.

[RJT]

33,

To quote a friend: Wow, takes me twice the words, to say half as much, and make weaker points!

RJT

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you polled people at the cemetery, you would find very few (any?) atheists visiting the tombs. The whole cemetery thing in itself should be absurd to the atheist &amp;#8211; no? It should be, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're very wrong.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet if you polled people at the cemetery, you would find very few (any?) atheists visiting the tombs. The whole cemetery thing in itself should be absurd to the atheist &amp;#8211; no? It should be, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're very wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to go out right now (weekly poker donkfest). Maybe someone can do a poll.

[Lestat]

I find it incredibly interesting how theists and atheists look at each other as though they are from completely two different planets.

Atheists are very capable of thinking, missing, remembering, and crying, over the loss of loved ones. Why wouldn't they go to a cemetery to visit the spot where their loved ones are buried? If this makes YOU feel better, why not them? Are you in constant prayer when at the cemetery? When you're not in prayer do you feel silly standing at the gravesite? The why should an atheist?

Now I would feel silly, but that's me. This is why I posted the question. I'm curious what motivates people (theists and atheists alike), to fuss over the dead the way they do. I don't understand it. It's not something I would do. But again, that's just me.

[MidGe]

The answer to the OP is rooted in culture, as I said earlier. Not all cultures memorialise their dead. Some cremate and disperse the ashes in the ocean, some use scavanger birds to eat away the bodies, some send them in canoes at the mercy of the elements, etc...

The memorial/burial is simply a quaint cultural habit, a form of conditionning for those that are in the grip of such conditionning.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The memorial/burial is simply a quaint cultural habit, a form of conditionning for those that are in the grip of such conditionning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Memorials exist in all cultures in some form.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The memorial/burial is simply a quaint cultural habit, a form of conditionning for those that are in the grip of such conditionning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Memorials exist in all cultures in some form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true!

Some cultures ensure complete disposal, some even forbid mention of the name of the deceased.

[Davidius]

...on behalf of anyone who would say that it is irrational for athiests (or theists) to mourn for the dead. You don't have to believe in an after-life to feel sincere grief that someone dear to you is dead and gone forever. That hurts. If spending time at someone's grave is a way to re-connect with meaningful memories of a loved one, then we need to respect that.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it incredibly interesting how theists and atheists look at each other as though they are from completely two different planets.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't they go to a cemetery to visit the spot where their loved ones are buried?

[/ QUOTE ]

Question: Why did you use the present tense – “are buried” instead of the past tense “were buried”? I think this might answer both your original question and your rhetorical question I quoted above.

Present tense to me signifies that the loved one still exists. That is how I think of my loved ones. They still exists (somewhere, somehow). I talk to them. I pray for them. I hope to “see” them again.

I would think an atheists would talk in the past tense. They once were and are no longer. They existed at one time and they died. Hence, “”…where their loved ones were buried.” If we want to use the present tense would we not say “…where the corpses of their loved ones are buried”?


Regarding whether atheists go to cemeteries as a rule or not: I did a poll of the two atheists at our poker game last night. They both said they do not.

I hear much argument on this thread that atheists, as a rule, frequent cemeteries. I have yet to hear from one who does.

(Btw, I want to reiterate - I am not saying that atheists don't grieve.)

[Lestat]

Good points RJT! As to past and present tenses...

Unless someone is un-buried, I consider them *still* buried even if it was 20 years ago.

You might be right about atheists visiting cemeteries however. I personally do not know of any who do, but it's not a subject I talk about with people either.

I also would like to point out that not everyone utilizes precision logic at all times (unless you're Sklansky -lol). The fact is, our live's are short and but a single occurance. I still consider the guy I told my daughters about to be my father. For instance, I could show you a ring my father gave me. I wouldn't show you ring the guy who *used* to be my father gave me. Atheist or not, it's impractical to speak in those terms. Does that make sense?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence, “”…where their loved ones were buried.” If we want to use the present tense would we not say “…where the corpses of their loved ones are buried”?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't that be the other way around?
christians believe the soul went to heaven and all that is is the ground is the corpse. They're the ones that need to differentiate. "His corpse is in the ground, he (his soul) is in heaven.", at least I hear them telling the little kids that... no reason to believe they're lying to little kids in this instance.
To atheists, all that is left of the person is in the ground, "He is buried here." encompasses 100% of what was tangible of the person when he was alive.
The police come up to an atheist. "Where is he buried."
... "well, he was buried here."
"We don't care, we want to know where he's buried now."
"oh, he's still buried here."
"that's it!! obstruction !!"

I agree, "HE" is not buried anyway, but since most people assume that it's bodies-only that are buried, neither xtrians or atheists need to redefine it each time. cheeesh.

[kurto]

After all the money you spend on a plot and a casket... I'd spend some time there just to get my money's worth.

Frankly, I don't understand it either. When people say it pays respect to the dead... I think its kind of silly. I don't believe that if one doesn't put flowers on a gravestone, it affects the dead person in any way.

I think the 'fussing of the dead' is really all for the living. Its a long term coping mechanism. I don't think there's any rational explanation for it but its a ritual that some people have been taught that helps them deal with their feelings for deceased loved ones.

I'm sure its also very different depending on your religious upbringing.

Regarding the guy with the 'blending up Grandma' reference... I vaguely remember reading many years ago about a cultural custom of returning the body to the earth SPECIFICALLY as fertilizer. The idea of using a dead body as fertilizer would be seen as natural. (after all, that's what happens to other animals)

Death rituals/body fussing varies by culture and religion. If you want to examine it, analyze the religions in the past of the culture that practices one ritual over another.

As land and funerals become more expensive, I believe cremating is becoming more popular. The idea of grieving over cemetaries could one day disappear. And then someone will ask why throw a loved one's ashes off the edge of a cliff.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure its also very different depending on your religious upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are/were some neat customs out there, some I ran across -

In the Solomon Islands the dead were laid out on a reef for the sharks to eat
The Parsees of Bombay used to leave their dead on top of towers to be eaten by vultures.
Pygmies: (African Congo) The Pygmies appear to be sort of uncomfortable with death. When a person dies, they pull down his hut on top of him, and move their camp while relatives cry. Then the dead person is never mentioned again.
...Tibetans reportedly even hacked up their dead for bird food because they had no respect for the body.

Of course, lots of variations on cremation, often with his worldly goods.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure its also very different depending on your religious upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are/were some neat customs out there, some I ran across -

In the Solomon Islands the dead were laid out on a reef for the sharks to eat
The Parsees of Bombay used to leave their dead on top of towers to be eaten by vultures.
Pygmies: (African Congo) The Pygmies appear to be sort of uncomfortable with death. When a person dies, they pull down his hut on top of him, and move their camp while relatives cry. Then the dead person is never mentioned again.
...Tibetans reportedly even hacked up their dead for bird food because they had no respect for the body.

Of course, lots of variations on cremation, often with his worldly goods.

[/ QUOTE ]

But nothing beats the death rituals of the pharoahs in terms of epicness.... unless you're their servants or wives who get buried alive with them.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please don't misunderstand me. I do see the significance of burial rites and rituals. What I don't see, is the significance of visiting the sight of a decomposing body when the loved one isn't even there.


[/ QUOTE ]

To me, you are not visiting the decaying body that lays under the ground. The gravesite/tombstone itself is, in a way, a monument to the person you loved. So for many people, when they stand at the grave, the feeling of closeness with the spirit of the deceased is stronger than it might be somewhere else.

It's probably similar to why people visit any other memorial. People routinely break into tears when they see a deceased friend or loved one's name on the Vietnam Memorial Wall. Why? There's nothing actually there, except a wall with some names written on it. But the monument, like the gravesite, brings the memories of the loved one back. The person does not have to be physically present for the monument to have a powerful effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Exactly. One more time, exactly. The gravesite is a symbol, end of the road. I'm an atheist and as I don't know what if anything happens after death the path of my deceased grandmother ends at the gravesite. The symbolic value of it and also the calmness and the nature around it makes it easier to remember the deceased one and feel closer to her.