 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar. The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?” I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?” Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue. Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.” When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands. Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice. But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree. While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. soundoff (4,964 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next »
Next entry »Stephen Colbert roasts the Pope
« Previous entryIn Syria, Muslims struggle to celebrate holy day
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
The once again free will. Those people in charge of running those countries where people are allowed to starve are not God believers or believe in anything for that matter. Now, I"m not saying that if you are not a God follower then your intentions are to do harm. But, if you had faith and love in someone such as God you would want to do good.
I wouldn't say that, because too much murder is done in the name of 'god'. These people believe what they are doing is what 'god' would want! They have interpreted the bible or any other religious book in a way that makes them believe that. That is the biggest problem with religion. It is created from writings from man, interpreted by man and can be interpreted in anyway they want to believe what they are doing is right! The difference is that I do good without needing a god! I know right from wrong and didn't need a preacher or book of fiction to tell me.
Many religionists do good as a means to curry favour with their god and/or to avoid punishment in the afterlife.
Many humanists do good simply because they want to improve the lot of their fellow humans.
Which do you believe is the more pure and moral motivation?
"Those people in charge of running those countries where people are allowed to starve are not God believers"
Isn't the GOP obsessed with cutting benefits to the poor?
Why is it then that the most secular countries in the world have the most social programs designed to keep people from going hungry, and most of the resistance here in the USA to such "socialist" programs comes from deep in the Bible Belt?
Yep, those Talibanites who believe in God are certainly doing good for everyone.
Tried to find some reason in the article why I should care what Oprah's opinion on religion and atheism is but could not.
So, what Oprah is saying is that khristians are only moral because they believe in a god, and without their god they are incapable of morality? That's pathetic.
What they typically don't consider is that they must have already had a sense of morality in place beforehand, otherwise how could they have known that God was supposedly a "good" guy?
My big guy in the sky can beat your big guy in the sky.
There is no evidence that atheists are more likely to be stricken with brain disorders than believers, so we can set aside people with psychological disorders.
Does anyone think that atheists are physiologically different than believers? That the population of atheists and believers would differ in their ability to empathize, love, anger, or experience any other emotion? Of course not.
Religious people vary in what they are awed by, but not that they can or can not experience awe. Same with atheists. This isn't what separates atheists and believers in god, it's that believers in god can fully operate on faith, atheists don't.
Religious people are mentally retarded.
I understand you are joking, but it is amazing that most of the highly intelligent people on the planet are part of a religion.
Ahh....who told you the most intelligent people in the world are religious?? Most if not all modern day geniuses were or are atheists. Einstein anyone? Jeez....And just for your further edification, several studies have shown that religious people's brains show noticeable atrophy in areas use for critical thinking. Fundamentalist brains show almost no critical thinking growth and are often bordering in the likeness of sociopaths.
Yes, but only very mildly. It's a mild delusion, that's it. They're broadly normal outside of their religious belief. They lie, they cheat, they fvck, they're selfish. Just like atheists and every other group in between.
That seems way too harsh – I'm sure it's more just a form of brainwashing or indoctrination from a very young age. It gets so ingrained into every part of one's being, it can be terribly hard to overcome later in life.
So, the article talks about getting to know atheists in order to have some shared understand. "Relationships can be transformative." Your comment disproves that. Who wants to get to know someone who calls you retard? Live and let live! Thomas Jeffereson was a deist. A man who could hardly be considered "retarded."
C'mon, have you ever met a believer who 'fully' operates on faith?
Poor choice of words, I meant fully operates within their religion on faith.
A lot of atheists use to be believers in much the same way as a lot of stage magicians use to be amazed by stage magic. Once you learn the "tricks", as they say, the veil becomes lifted and you stop being amazed by religious claims.
"it's that believers in god can fully operate on faith, atheists don't."
If by "faith" you mean "trust and confidence", then, yes, believers operate on faith. If by "faith" you mean "belief without evidence", then, no, they do not operate on faith and you'll never understand their argument.
I think the best solution to this problem of the definition of spirituality is just to not use the word.
As an atheist I have never once said that I have a "sense of spirituality", instead I would use the phrase "sense of poetry" or "sense of beauty". They express the same thing, but without the stupid soul baggage that comes along.
Sensationalism at its finest....
I agree. Too many assumptions are made when someone uses that word.
I am god, and I am love....
Now get down on your knees and worship me, or I will sentence you to eternal torture in a fire pit with a demon poking you with a pitchfork!
You are an as.shole and you give atheists a bad name.
Are you saying that God supposedly will not allow people to get tortured just for not believing in him? Where did he get Christian theology wrong?
why choose torture?
stand up straight. jump up and down. get prostrate. don't matter to me.
what do you want to do and to say to the person who saved your life? who threw you a life preserver? gave you a cup of cold water on your desert journey? forgave your sins? released you from the bondage of sin and satan?
What bible does God say, "worship me or I will torture you in a fiery pit?" My interpertation of the bible, is God gives everyone free will. If you don't want to abide his commandments then that's up to you. Don't you think that if God is all powerful and you didn't agree with him, he would just strike you with lighting where you sit? He is love. Not forceful.
If he is so loving, why does your all-powerful god allow innocent children to starve and die and be tortured every single day? Ever stop to ask yourself that? Ever stop to ask yourself why you "worship" someone like that instead of reviling them?
Being a slave to a vindictive blood thirsty "god", is hardly a practice of "free will".
@ Athiest for life:
even before I became a believer in Jesus, I asked those very same questions. And He didn't answer me until I accepted Him.
His answer to me was with another question: "why have YOU allowed all this to happen to your brothers and sisters?". While there was sting to it, I've come to understand that since He loved us so much, He gave us our freedom to stay on His terms, or not. He let us have what we wanted, and this is what we've turned it into.
You blast God for all the troubles of this world, but as an athiest, you really can't. It wouldnt make sense. As such, we are both in agreement on this one issue: the problems of this world are by man's doing.
So now I ask the same question as I was asked: what are YOU going to do about it?
To Atheist for Life: Humans are tortured, suffering and starved because WE humans allow it. You're not getting it, are you? If there is a "Creator" (and I think there is), that has endowed you with FREE WILL, then you can choose your path – to ignore or respond to suffering. I think there is a Creator who only responds to free will love of itself. Never would I want a puppet spouse or family to acknowledge or love and respect me because they mandatorily were commanded (which would be meaningless), I can appreciate a higher being who steps back and allows those to love back, change the world or ignore. Care or love is meaningless if you are required to give it. Real love – and the willingness to act upon it by alleviating the suffering of others- really is something you only can choose and cannot be foisted upon you by law of any kind. You might as well have a doll or robot to "love" you or to love back and that is absurd.. A good parent (or Creator) can guide you but doesn't always prevent the stupid mistakes you learn and hopefully improve from.
The god gives free will crap is easily debunked, open your mind and listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbSjlGFlEgk
If you don't want to abide his commandments then that's up to you
-----
How do you know God's desires are written in the bible?
If he is all powerful then he would not allow hell to exist. Not if he is merciful, that is, but if he is sadistic and vengeful then even just letting those he dislikes fall into something so horrible would make perfect sense.
"god" never wrote a bible. King James did "the hand of man through the voice of god" where are all the Kangaroos in the bible? And why didn't he just tell us it was round???? Silly people....built it- didn't know it was round. Go talk to a snake.
"king James wrote the bible"? Hahaha!!!!!! Please do your homework please. He translated it in 1611,but the bible has been around a lot longer than 400 years. Really Jack.. you're embarrassing yourself.
Who wrote the words that were translated? How do you even know the translation is accurate? I suggest you do your own research before judging.
Sorry, he didn't translate it, either. A group of scholars did. Of course, they were all theists with a predetermined point of view to support.
Stalin does not send anyone to the Gulag.
It is those who have hardened their hearts against him who send themselves to the Gulag through their bourgoise atti/tudes and counter-revolutionary actions.
This was not Stalin's plan at all.
He truly wants everyone to go to the Worker's Paradise and it grieves him that so many harden their hearts against him.
But he will not force anyone into the Worker's Paradise against their wishes.
He respects their free will.
If you don't want to go to the Gulag, just open your heart to the love of Stalin.
Sound familiar at all?
Well said!
"If you don't want to abide his commandments"
Four of them demand I worship it and according to other demands made by it, you are to have no idols...so how am I not having idols if I'm demanded to worship it or suffer severe torturous consequences??. Do you see the contradiction there???
The next six don't take a genius to figure out. I don't require a book to tell me not to kill or not to screw around on my spouse....maybe you do but not all are so weak.
Since when do religious people get to define what atheists think? And to even define "atheism" to fit their own misconceptions? Smacks of desperation to me...
Since when do atheist people get to define what Christians think? And to even define "Christianity" to fit their own misconceptions? Smacks of desperation to me... (ahem... Atheist for Life)
We don't do anything to the definition of Christianity. If it seems harsh to you, maybe you haven't given what being a Christian actually is much consideration?
And vice versa
Not vice versa. All being an atheist means is that you don't believe in any gods. It doesn't mean, like Oprah thinks, that we actually do believe in gods, but don't recognize them as such. Any "god" would behave in some way that cannot be explained naturally, correct. That's why I do not believe that the sun is a god, or my table, or my dog. I have no reason to even suspect that they are gods until they do something that doesn't seem natural. I see no evidence for anything supernatural at all, so why would I suspect that any actual gods really do exist?
Are you a pilgrim of 'The City of God'? Honestly no such country has ever or can ever exist not even America is a Christian country. I am more of a Thomas Kuhn's paradigm mindset that your perseption changes over time not remain static. Also a passifist like 'Politics of Christ" by John Howard Yoder. I am not into controling others but immigration as such that pilgrims cannot choose readily where to move to like his forefather Hippo philosophy had in mind either though.
Oprah has proven herself a brilliant businesswoman and very good actress. She's proven herself able to amass an obscene fortune and she is undoubtedly a greatly generous person who wants to make the world a better place and see people reach their potential.
But Oprah is not a particularly deep thinker. She wants to be. She's highly intelligent. But she's not a person who should present herself as a spiritual guide to anyone. Spirituality is a very dangerous place to attempt to saturate with celebrity and ego, and as much as I admire some of Oprah's qualities and accomplishments, that's what this is.
If Oprah wants to help people toward spiritual enlightenment, she's in the wrong place, in my opinion: She should be putting her considerable energy and resources toward securing individual rights for those in the world who are oppressed; religiously and otherwise. She should create a center for the study of interfaith dialogue. She should create a talk show on her OWN network that has hosts of different faiths (a la The View) They could deal with everyday topics just as any other show, but give their religious opinions, as opposed to personal or political. It could be brilliant.
My advice to Oprah: keep it where it belongs. 🙂
I agree!
Why is it so important for someone to attach any importance to what Oprah thinks?
The *only* reason is because Oprah has an unimaginably massive cult following. She exerts more influence than Jesus Christ's teachings... thought I'd throw that in there since she's making religious statements/arguments
At the time of the bible, no one knew about many phenomena like magnetism, radio waves, X-Rays, etc. They are invisible. How do we know they exist? We conduct experiments that test the models/theories that describe these phenomena, and they match up extremely well under multiple different tests conducted by different qualified people.
I would think something as important as the god you will worship and pattern your entire life by, would elicit some level of evidence before such dedication is extended. If someone told you your significant other was cheating, you'd require some evidence before believing it.
The difference is, people are programmed to believe particular religious ideas when they are very young by the people that they must trust to survive. These are taught as facts, like rocks are hard and water is fluid. They become reality.
A key fact is, most people's religious beliefs MUST be wrong. It is also likely that all mass religions are false. There are many aspects of those religions that conflict with the testable scientific facts discussed above. This doesn't mean there is no god(s), just that the mass religions are false.
Pray
To whom?
Something bigger than you.
I don't pray to things bigger than me, but I respect big things that actually exist and can be observed in some way.
I prayed to a hippo once. He whipped his tail around and flung his crap all over me.
I agree with you. The way I see it, the bible, or any other religious book are written by man, interpreted by man and man is flawed, therefore, religion is flawed!
As an agnostic, I have a question for all sides of the issue of a superior being: How can you be sure?
Are you an agnostic about Skeletor?
My answer is simple, you can't. There is no evidence either way. Therefore, it is completely illogical to start believing in something with no evidence. It is far more logical to believe in no imaginary spirits until scientific evidence of their existence is presented.
Despite what some people say, nobody KNOWS that God exists. In my mind, religion is not a matter of knowing but a matter of believing.
Right, but oddly you meet religious people who "know" and "believe" the same thing at the same time. Could I point out that faith is not necessary for what is "known." 2 + 2 is 4. I know it, I don't believe it. I don't try to strengthen my faith about it. Only a very limited number of mathematicians need to agonize over that...
" How can you be sure?"
I'm not, however it seems unlikely that God exists, but I'm willing to look at any new data.
Atheists don't claim to be sure. It's a matter of probability. What the religious purport is very, very unlikely...
How can I be sure??? It is called faith.. Simple as that..
Do you believe that there is a god?
If you answer anything but "yes" to that question, then you are an atheist as well as an agnostic.
gnostic = "knowledge" and whether or not it can be possible to know if god does or does not exist.
theist = belief that god exists.
adding the prefix "a" (without) we get:
agnostic: does not believe it is possible to know
atheist: does not believe
I do not think it is possible to know whether or not there is a god; however I do not believe that there is one (not convinced of the veracity of an extraordinary claim).
Put these together and I am an agnostic atheist.
"agnostic: does not believe it is possible to know"
That's not exactly correct. The word "agnostic" means "without knowledge" or "does not know." It says nothing about the possiblity.
Well, personally I hope there is a god. I hope it is one of the major three. That MF'er has a lot to answer for and I hope I get the chance to say it to their face.
They can't be sure. Not the atheist anti-religion zealots, and neither can the religious zealots the atheists claim to be so different from - all the time. I am not sure who is more annoying or condescending. I am an agnostic because I have never been dead. No one alive KNOWS anything about what people who are dead experience during death.
Science never purports that you can know about anything absolutely. But there is a significant amount of evidence that suggests that consciousness is derived from brain activity and it ceases when brain activity ceases. There is no evidence to the contrary, other than religious books and heresy.
Marty
I'm an agnostic, but I'm also an atheist. I don't know that no gods exist anywhere in the universe, but I'm not convinced by any of the claims that any gods actually do exist, and have been involved in human history. See how that works?
Keep coming back and talking about religion and God all day long my lovely atheists. Oh, the irony!
Instead of using logic and rational thinking to study the world, I use it to justify my ironic behavior. That is why I keep coming back.
What's ironic? I know a guy who's a scholar who specializes in Greek stories. Is it ironic that he spend the majority of his time discussing Odysseus, a character he doesn't believe in?
Does he act hostile toward people that like greek stories? Does he have a childish name like "In Odysseus We Trust" and declare that anyone that reads greek stories is mentally retarded? 'Deep down... can you tell he is ironic in that he hates greek stories, but all he ever talks about his greek stories?
You're describing ass-holes, not atheists. An ass-hole does these things, his atheism is irrelevant.
Ok. I should say some atheists that post on here. But not all. Sowwy.
As you should be.
Keep Coming Back,
That Greek myth scholar might just get a little testy if the avid believers in Zeus were trying to run the country and our lives according to their fantasies and superst.itions. I'll bet that you would too. I'll bet that he (and you) would speak up to show the fallacy of those myths and superst.itions.
"God is love"
Now get down on your knees and worship him, or he will sentence you to eternal torture in a fire pit!
....I can just feel the love.
love it!
This Christian doesnt have a problem with atheists.
What kind of Christian?
"Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." –Thomas Jefferson
Do you also think you should own slaves live Jefferson, oh wise non-believer?
Since God apparently thought it was o.k. to have slaves ( He never said not to own slaves) then it must be o.k. even now. After all morals are absolute so if slavery was o.k. in the past it is still o.k. now.
Since "god" is all powerful, and COULD stop all of the innocent children from starving and dying and doesn't, isn't he also an accessory to murder?
Since "god" COULD stop all of the innocent children from starving and dying and doesn't, isn't he also an accessory to murder?
I've often said that if there was a god I would be all too happy to berate him for screwing everything up so badly for those he supposedly loves so much.
LOL, same here friend. IF he DOES exist, then I would tell him to kiss my A YUSS and flip him the bird for being all-powerful and still allowing so many innocent people, especially children, to starve and die horrendous deaths every single hour of every day while he stood by idle.
God, if you exist, F you.
A superior being there most certainly is. It's the ET's who used us to build pyramids, Zimbabwe ruins etc. Whether you believe that there is someone else superior to them is neither here nor there. Until you find them and ask them, consider yourself made by them. We know they did (do) exist, and they are superior to us; therefore they are God!
I am an atheist and as such refuse to even talk about a "god". It would be like arguing whether or not unicorns, the tooth fairy or santa claus exist.
Actually, unicorns DO exist, and YOU do believe in them...:)
The Hebrew word re'em is mentioned eight times in the Bible, and signifies some kind of horned animal that could possibly be the now extinct aurochs – a wild ox related to a cow. In the Latin Vulgate however, the translators used the words “unicornis, unicornium, rinocerota, rinocerotis, and rinoceros” whose English rendering in the KJV is “unicorn” for the name of this horned animal each time it occurred: Job 39:9-10, Numbers 23:22, 24:8, Psalm 22:22, 29:6, 92:10, Deuteronomy 33:17, and Isaiah 34:7. Depending upon the context of the passage however, the authors either use the word “rhinoceros” if the intent was to speak of two horns, or “unicornis” if the intent was to mean a singular horn. In Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, the word “unicorn” has this as its entry: “An animal with one horn: the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros.” It goes on to say under the entry for “rhinoceros” that: “a genus of quadrupeds of two species, one of which, the unicorn, has a single horn growing almost erect from the nose. This animal when full grown, is said to be 12 feet in length. There is another species with two horns, the bicornis. They are natives of Asia and Africa.” Even today, the scientific name for the Asian one-horned rhinoceros is “Rhinoceros unicornis,” (the same word as mentioned in the Latin Vulgate) while the two-horned black rhinoceros is the “Diceros bicornis.”
Unicorns do exist. I have 4 locked in my basement. I harvest their horn twice a year and sell them to Chinese herbalists.
It's sounds more like the person that gave the latin designation for the rhino knew that usage and applied to the rhino, not the other way around.
It doesn't mean you can't talk about it though. I don't believe Judge Holden is the living embodiment of the depths of human depravity but I still like discussing him as a literary character.
Absolutely! Excellent book if I read one!
Disturbingly brilliant.
'I'll never die!'
Well......you can stand on the shore and experience awe and wonder all you want and call that being spiritual, and that anyone can do....that is not spirituality, the definition of spiritual is (of soul: relating to the soul or spirit), God breathed into man a SOUL. A soul doesn't just evolve.... . Just look at the bible, and read it....it is a guide book. I know that it is hard for some to belive there is a God and that he loves us and has given us instruction in the Bible. the funny thing is in the end...........when we all die and for sure we all have that in common.....the Bible says that there is a life after death. It is an absolute horrible thought that after living on this earth for whatever years we are given, going through hard times and good...that there is nothing after this. ...what a sad state of mind to be in, to not believe that there is a God that loves us and has eternity waiting for us if we just look to Him. I always say...each person will KNOW when they die, what awaits.
What you describe as a "sad state of mind" is at least realistic and much, much less sad than believing in a myth just because it makes you feel better.
I won't KNOW anything when I'm dead as my consciousness will almost certainly cease to exist.
Well, feel free to continue to put yourself at ease with the happy thought that there is a god and you will live forever.
I actually almost envy you. I wish I could willingly suspend my disbelief in a claim that is unsubstantiated just to make me feel better about my existence.
I am quite content with the here and now, the trials and tribulations serve to give me greater appreciation for the joy to be found in life. I cannot suspend the reality I perceive and override my brain when it screams "In order to believe x and feel better you will be deluding yourself"
"what a sad state of mind to be in"
... yeah, death is sad. I'm glad you're not totally devoid of rationality... alternatively some Christians argue that death is GREAT.
As sad as death is, it's even more sad that people waste their entire lives thinking they're about to embrace eternal bliss once they "pass from this life".
Just look at the bible, and read it....it is a guide book
-----
A guide book for who?