Funerals have purpose. Family members can gather to mourn and get closure. This is not superstition. I never even remotely suggested that it was, nor did I say that we should forget people when they die.
Of course it's not superstitious. A funeral serves the emotional needs of the family. As does ceremony regarding the body of the deceased.
You're saying I said something I didn't, then arguing against that. That's a strawman.
No, I'm pointing something out in an analogous situation to highlight something you're ignoring in the situation under discussion. That's not
a strawman. But then, intellectual honesty hasn't been your strong point so far on this forum, so I don't expect you to acknowledge the fact...
On the other hand, preserving bodies for centuries by embalming then encasing them in an airtight tomb, as is the modern practice, is simply modern mummification. There is no afterlife, therefore no reason to preserve the bodies this way. It's also a huge waste of land and resources. It is stupid.
Wait, are you saying that if there was an afterlife, then it would
make sense to bury our dead? That seems to be the dichotomy you're presenting: The idea the lack
of afterlife means there is no
need to bury only makes sense if it was true that the presence
of an afterlife would somehow mean that there was
a need to bury. Maybe that makes sense in the old Egyptian style of religion, but is that even related to the modern superstition of our culture? Most of those are Abrahamic, or similarly derived. The "soul" is supposed to have departed the body. In that superstitious context, burial makes no sense with respect to an afterlife. The dead person's soul has gone to whevever it was supposed to go, and the body is a husk. I've been to Christian funerals, and they actually call
the body an empty husk at some of them. It doesn't
hold some superstitious meaning to them.
This whole "burial necessarily means superstition" thing has all the hallmarks of something you've just pulled out of your ass without any evidence to back it up. Kind of like a religious belief, only with fewer excuses. Not to mention that, as jaimehlers has pointed out, the body's not generally preserved in an air-tight casket for centuries. I'm guessing that the prevalence of such preservation is something that you've also
made up out of thin air.
Cremation is less stupid, but more creepy.
Creepy, eh? Sounds superstitious. Afraid of ghosts?
I mean if a funeral is for closure, then why keep the dead in your house?
Because one wants to keep a monument to the dead. This is also part of the justification for burial. Cremation just happens to be more practical in many cases.
And how many generations are you expected to keep?
Passive voice is cowardly writing. Come on, Joe - expected by whom
Should my father pass down his father's ashes to me, and I pass them on to my kids, and so on? At some point, you've got a closet full of jars of human remains. That kind of crazy only happens for religious reasons.
If the ashes no longer mean anything to the one(s) holding them, then there is no need to keep them.
By all means, have a funeral, say goodbye. Then let the city body disposal service take it away and make compost out of it.
Why? They're dead. Gone. It's not like they're looking backward from an afterlife. Whyever would we need a funeral?
By the way, does your local compost service accept meat? I'm pretty sure mine doesn't.
It only seems offensive because it's new. I'm sure the first guy who said "Dude, let's set your dead mom on fire," or probably got some disapproving looks in his day.
No. It seems offensive because it ignores the human need to remember and honor our dead. Are you ignoring that aspect out of ignorance, or out of malice?