I'm surprised by this take, simply because of my own experience, where the further I've gotten from religion over a very long time, the less significant I've found death.

Not having "answers" to what comes next has never been a weight for me - at least not since I was a child. Death being a completion, or a finality, is freeing; The end of what has been and what I hope continues to be a wonderful journey. The only weight I carry in regards to death are for those closest to me, and especially those for whom I'm responsible.

Atheism doesn't presuppose either hedonism or nihilism. This is a common theist libel which is surprisingly popular on this forum of ersatz rational thinkers and logicians. Atheists are perfectly capable of finding value and meaning in their own lives and the world around them, they just don't base that value on a belief in the supernatural. Listen to any astrophysicist, physicist or biologist talk about their field and you'll encounter a wonder and awe that no theologian reciting thousand year old tracts can match.

Which is probably why religion was developed in the first place, for its comforting effects, as a balm, a bravery-enhancer, a coping strategy for dealing with inevitable death.

I think the way we deal with death nowadays has more to do with arrogance or hubris, coupled with wishful thinking. We're used to thinking we control things, and can get anything we want. One thing useful from the religions was having a healthy sense of your own limitations, or you could say a sense of wonder or mystery or perspective. A reminder that you're not the most powerful thing in the universe. Which is true, and healthy to be aware of, whether any god exists or not.

Edit to add: There are few places where that hubris and certainty tend to be more pronounced than among doctors. Part of what this woman is grieving is probably the loss of certainty, of control or the illusion thereof.

All the atheistic/agnostic people I know believe they are insignificant in the grand scheme of nature, not just in the chain of generations of people.

If anything, I find religious people are the ones who believe humans are special.

This is not even slightly true and seems to be based on a profound misunderstanding of atheism. From my perspective as atheist since the age of 11, it's the reverse of the case.

> Someone always rocks up to say this in these threads, and then never actually offers any suggestions of what they think an alternative should look like.

It's a broad observation about culture - there's no "alternative" to a well-established culture, no single forum comment will change society.

> Seriously, what is the alternative meant to be? ... Constantly reminding people that everyone will die and you'll be forgotten completely in about 3 generations?

I think you're on to something here; there's an inherent conflict between ruthless individualism that tells people they can do anything they put their mind to, and the stark, limiting reality of mortality. That's a bummer, so don't think or talk about it, or it'll mess with your grindset.

Collectivist cultures already embraces the idea that one's life is more than just about the individual, so grief and talking about death are far less radioactive. Religions that embrace ancestral spirits being presence offer comfort in continuity; her husband isn't really gone, and he may even watch ober their daughter, and even help her in math exams. In that light, dying is less of a big deal - more of a transition really - compared to oblivion, which is super heavy. I'm not saying these are better

An alternative would be:

+ Yes, allowing people to have a celebration goodbye party before they go

+ Allowing for medically assisted dying on a person's own terms

+ More open conversations about: directives, how people would like to be treated when they near death, wills, inheritances, funerals. These are all taboo topics

+ A natural part of life

I think there's something of a pendulum here, and I agree it's swayed too far to over-diagnosing ourselves. But I also think of my father who passed a couple years ago.

We didn't have much of a relationship. He had friends, but never close ones. He was weirdly mean or weirdly seclusive or weirdly awkward at times - and also incredibly intelligent and occasionally gracious and hilarious.

After he passed, I wondered if he might have been somewhere on the spectrum - but his peculiarities were simply ignored. A poor boy, in a poor urban neighborhood, with a dead father, being raised by an immigrant mother and immigrant siblings doesn't get diagnosed with much of anything - if they see doctors at all. And hey, he had a near photographic memory, and did great in school, so what's there to worry about?

It's always been "how he was", and that's probably ok, but I do wonder if he would have had a better or somehow different life if he knew more about _why_ he was the way he was.

In my understanding ADHD is one of the few conditions that is extremely well studied and consistently appears to be a certain % of the population regardless of nationality with very strongly correlated negative outcomes with their suite of symptoms. I'm talking addition, obesity, and a shortened lifespan directly related to their ADHD. This seems like a disorder to me. If someone has attention difficulties and can function fine they obviously don't have a disorder vs someone who has attention difficulties and as a result becomes addicted to cocaine.

> In those cases, why is it a "disorder"? Why can't it just be "how some people are"?

It often is:

> It can be helpful to think of ADHD not just as a deficit or disorder but as a ‘difference’.

Especially as it seems to come with positive traits! It goes on to list focus, responding well in a crisis and creativity as common ADHD traits.

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mental-health/mental-illnesses-and...

I'm autistic which is also a disorder. Like ADHD it's a neurodevelopmental disorder because from a scientific and medical POV the brain developed abnormally compared to a neurotypical person's brain.

I guess your point is why does it require a label at all but science abhors a taxonomic vacuum, everything must be classified and if so I'd rather it be a disorder than a disease or illness.

Of course this opinion is just mine, I have no idea how other autistic or adhd people see this as I don't keep up with the neurodiverse community and what words are considered good or bad.

>> For some people this is problematic, but others can function fine and happily with this.

In that case I would say it’s not ADHD, which as its name suggests is disordered. If the ADH part isn’t negatively impacting your life why would it require a diagnosis?

The DSM-5 defines ADHD as "A persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development". If you're functioning fine, then by definition you don't have ADHD.

Don't take this the wrong way, but what point are you trying to make? What was your goal here?

> We also stigmatize mental health care in the west, telling people to “suck it up” or “get over it”.

I think this idea is ~10 years out of date. If anything, we now seem pathologize every behavior and personality quirk into a mental health issue. At least on social media, it's also trendy to have a mental health issue to the point that people will claim to have ADHD because they're easily distracted by their phones. I've also lost count of the number of big "content creators" who casually mention their therapist or going to therapy. If there is a stigma, it's not found among the younger generations.

It used to be in the west. The Catholic Church discourages the scattering of ashes for just that reason - so that there is somewhere physical where people can be remembered. There was a tradition of memorial services. People still look after the graves of their loved ones.

I also think its not a simple east-west divide. Different cultures have many different ways of dealing with death. The contemporary west does have a problem, although i doubt it is the only culture for which that is true.

My family follows a mix of Christian tradition (e.g. memorial masses) and Sri Lankan (e.g. donations of food in memory of the dead).

> I often wonder how dealing with death compares to the east where ancestors are commonly remembered, contemplated, and revered.

In what way is this not western as well? Implying that western culture does not remember, contemplate, and revere those that have gone before us is a bad take.

I wonder how traditions around death help us to deal with it. I feel completely incapable of handling death.. I do not know how to comport myself.

I've always been averse to this sort of Jungian schema (it's a Freudian baggage I have -- Mourning and Melancholia has much value on the present topic!), but more and more I'm seeing how much wisdom was lost in the historic disavowal of myth and archetypal thought. Since having a child, my wife and I have been repeatedly stunned at how incapable our own parents are. I don't mean a mere absence of help with babysitting (although they suck at this, too), I mean they just have no idea how to deal with us or our kid as living beings. They shrink at the first sign of difficulty. They want absolutely no relationship with death. We've had to find new elders elsewhere; they really aren't easy to find but they do exists.