Well said, without anger, concise and quotable. So glad I found this site. Thank you.

A very sensitive topic, certainly, though one I think we atheists should not shy away from.

The most obvious comfort (I would say) would be to look around at all the people are hurting because Scott is gone. He clearly was loved to have people so devastated at his loss. Is that in itself not a source of comfort?

(On a side note I'm actually finding this post a lot harder to type than I thought I would. Kinda feels like I'm being disrespectful or callous because obviously I didn't know him. Nevertheless, I'll press on...)

The addage of 'celebrating the life rather than mourning the death' might be a cliche, but things are usually cliches because they are true. Perhaps there is comfort to be found in counting having known Scott as a 'blessing' rather than his untimely death as an injustice.

Lastly, I would like to think that religion need play no part in people supporting and comforting each other through a time of mourning. You are all there for each other, and surely that is wonderful in itself - the human compulsion to comfort the upset and share the burden of sorrow? In our empathy lies humanity's greatest strength.

As a warning though, I remember back to my grandmothers' funerals where I sat through religious ceremonies and heard a lot of well-intentioned but thoroughly Christian sentiments and 'comforting' platitudes. I found it was best to bite my tongue and accept the comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I'm sure you don't need me to point this out, but much as we should be outspoken in our atheism, I think this is probably an inappropriate time to attempt to counter the barrage of religious sentiment that is bound to come your way. It is enough if you are there to offer the emotional support and practical help that an human being can provide.

As I said, this was a harder post to write than I anticipated. I've re-written it several times, and I'm still not happy that it doesn't sound entirely sanctimonious. If anything I've said is insensitive, then I'll only apologise, but I hope this give you a new perspective on your question.

What comfort can athiests offer other atheists and theists alike when they are in the throes of grief?

A little background to why I ask this question- My fiance Ric was one of the groomsmen at his best mate's (Ross) wedding along with another of Ross's best mates Scott. On Saturday (less than 48hours ago) Scott was riding his off-road motorbike when he stuffed up a jump and was hit in the chest by his handle bars and punctured his heart. He died within a minute or two and couldn't be revived. He was 2 weeks short of his 21st birthday. It has left a lot of people devastated. My fiance and I didn't know him well but some of our good friends were very close to him and aren't handling it well.

A lot of things people say and the comfort they take is derived from religion. I'm not about to start being insincere and saying that he is probably in heaven or saying things like "only the good die young". If he had been older we could take comfort in the fact he had a long life- but he didn't. If he had been terminally ill we could console ourselves with the fact he isn't in pain any longer.

I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on death from an atheist view point that could help deal with situations like this. Most of Scotts mates are dealing with this by drinking until they pass out and randomly ringing his mobile phone to listen to his voicemail message. I'm wondering if any of you have any thoughts on death that can help pull them through this?

We want to save the planet from our own self destructive behavior, itself born of the belief that we are above the natural order of things. How, tell me, is this functionally any different from the privileged assumption of special creation?

It's not. The view that we are "above the natural order of things" is a "human chauvinist" view. The "save our planet" campaign is really a "save the humans" campaign.

For me, the creative tension is in firmly holding on to the knowledge that in the bigger picture, we are nobody special, and we are absolutely inseparable from the natural order of things, while at the same time recognising that in our own minds, and for a particular value of special, we are special and different to everything else. The second factor strongly influences my own instinctive choices and preferences, but the first factor rules when I'm making a serious attempt to apply impartial reason to whatever it is that I'm thinking about.

Do I support green initiatives and think/worry about the prospects of my grandchildren inheriting a habitable environment? Yes. Do I believe we are the ultimate trick this planet will ever produce, or that the planet would really suffer from our loss? No.

What I am trying to establish in my own mind is whether or not humanists are guilty of this hubris almost by default.

Given that the definition/formulation for "humanism" you have given is in denotation a half-truth, and in connotation wildly dishonest, as a description of the sentiments of any self-proclaimed "humanist" I have ever met, I honestly don't see why you consider this an interesting or useful subject to debate.

But there's no reason to think that they (animals generally s.b edit) are more valuable to the planet or the universe or to any other species that happens to be out there. That would be the most utter hubris.

What I am trying to establish in my own mind is whether or not humanists are guilty of this hubris almost by default. We want to save the planet from our own self destructive behavior, itself born of the belief that we are above the natural order of things. How, tell me, is this functionally any different from the privileged assumption of special creation?

This is explicit in most religions, but in humanism we find other reasons to do this, and other terminology to express it. However the same promises are made, only that humanists frame their salvation in future utopias whereas the religious promise an afterlife.

In one way, I agree with this - for example, in the debate about climate change, it is clear that both sides of the debate are totally human-centred. Those who argue for doing nothing are saying - it's too much bother, and it's going to cost us as humans to make such efforts. Those who argue for capping CO2 emissions are saying, if we want to keep a planet that people can live on, we need to take these actions. Very few humans (possible exception my old friend Lynn Margulis) ever take the point of view of the bacteria, for example, who will probably only be slightly inconvenienced by whatever climate changes lie ahead.

On the other hand, I'm not sure that humanism is only about the search for a human-sized utopia. My own humanism is more of the here-and-now variety. I would, for example, choose to save the life of my own child, for example, over that of another animal. That is normal and natural for me, as I am human, and am naturally acting from the particularism of my point of view in the world.

My argument against any notion of special creation (even if I did grant the existence of a creator for the sake of the argument) is that a human-centred point of view would be utterly inappropriate in a creator of everything. That creator should, IMHO, have the same regard for a worm, a wolf, and a wormhole as for a human.

Likewise, a humanist point of view that states that human life has an intrinsically greater value than that of a worm, to my mind would be incorrect. Human lives are naturally more valuable to humans. But there's no reason to think that they are more valuable to the planet or the universe or to any other species that happens to be out there. That would be the most utter hubris.

However the same promises are made, only that humanists frame their salvation in future utopias whereas the religious promise an afterlife.

ToMAYto, AvoCAHdo...

(That is to say, neither my experience or you have provided meaningful support for the claim that humanist hopes of bettering the general human condition are comparable to religious hopes of "salvation" or an afterlife. In fact, you aren't talking as though you realize this NEEDS to be supported.)

But to me, the point of being a "humanist," is that I'm human. If I was a dolphin, and presuming a certain level of awareness, no doubt I'd be a "dolphinist." I'd still be distinguishing myself as a dolphin from all other animals, including humans.

Scotlyn, thank-you. Your perspicacity is exactly what I needed to crystallise the point I was trying to make. As humans, we deify (actually and metaphorically) the human condition. This is explicit in most religions, but in humanism we find other reasons to do this, and other terminology to express it. However the same promises are made, only that humanists frame their salvation in future utopias whereas the religious promise an afterlife. So, given what we know of the way humans actually behave in real life ( and also dolphins incidentally which aren't as friendly as their apparent smiles would suggest) are WE ('cos I'm one of them) still indulging in wishful thinking?