1 hour ago, nb Innisfree said:

I'm neither theist or atheist, I just dont know, I am and always have been very curious about my sometimes odd experiences, wondering what the reasons for them are, I've come to believe our reality is not what it seems, that's all. 

 

I haven't mentioned "evidence" so far but there is plenty of it from all sides but no proof, 

 

Accusations of being superstitious or delusory don't affect me in the slightest and won't affect my curiosity. If you are satisfied with your view of reality then carry on, it makes no difference to me. There is no onus on me to prove/disprove anything. 

 

I'm going to bed so I won't wait. 

Nobody really knows what happens after we die, all beliefs are down to the people concerned and shouldn't really bother others. On a personal note in the Falklands, gulf and other places most injured or dying people ask for God's help and their mums strangely as she isn't there either. You probably found similar as a firefighter?

9 hours ago, nb Innisfree said:

Being "religious", what does that mean exactly?

eg I dont believe in the concept of death being the end, I believe our reality is a simulated  reality and our consciousness carries on, but I don't attend church or subscribe to the idea of, or appeal to, a higher authority, and I don't belong to or follow any group other than my family/neighbours/friends etc, so I don't consider myself to be religious, but I've been labelled as such. 

 

You are ‘spiritual’, by the sound of it. That’s a broad church, that one.  Very much more common now in our society as the traditional church has fallen into decline. 
The essence of your belief seems to be the subjective experience of consciousness, which we all experience as somehow separate from the physical body, and we can easily be persuaded is transcendent. Thus we may start to imagine, wish for, and then believe in life after death. 
This is of course the religious concept of the soul. Found in nearly all religions, either with or without the overt presence of major deity. It’s hugely important to the fundamentals of eternal life, heaven, and of course hell, the latter having gone a bit out of fashion these days. 
While consciousness exists, there is no evidence at all that it continues after death, rather to the contrary it appears to stop when electro chemical brain activity stops. But the idea it carries on is very very captivating, I think we can all agree on that. It makes life itself easier to bear. 
Oddly enough I’d have thought that belief in life after death would make believers quite unconcerned about death, since it’s just a doorway. But it tends not to be so, because on questioning it turns out that behind the door lies a judge, and the quality of accommodation in eternal life depends on the judges rules. Often it emerges that one of those rules is not opening the door yourself, or indeed letting others do so. 
And that’s the rub in this debate.

1 hour ago, Tigerr said:

You are ‘spiritual’, by the sound of it. That’s a broad church, that one.  Very much more common now in our society as the traditional church has fallen into decline. 
The essence of your belief seems to be the subjective experience of consciousness, which we all experience as somehow separate from the physical body, and we can easily be persuaded is transcendent. Thus we may start to imagine, wish for, and then believe in life after death. 
This is of course the religious concept of the soul. Found in nearly all religions, either with or without the overt presence of major deity. It’s hugely important to the fundamentals of eternal life, heaven, and of course hell, the latter having gone a bit out of fashion these days. 
While consciousness exists, there is no evidence at all that it continues after death, rather to the contrary it appears to stop when electro chemical brain activity stops. But the idea it carries on is very very captivating, I think we can all agree on that. It makes life itself easier to bear. 
Oddly enough I’d have thought that belief in life after death would make believers quite unconcerned about death, since it’s just a doorway. But it tends not to be so, because on questioning it turns out that behind the door lies a judge, and the quality of accommodation in eternal life depends on the judges rules. Often it emerges that one of those rules is not opening the door yourself, or indeed letting others do so. 
And that’s the rub in this debate.

This can get quite deep but the thinking that puts me in the Atheist camp is that if my consciousness was supposed to transcend my death, where was it before I was born? If it didn't exist before I was born, why would I expect it to continue after death?

There are some very elequent posts here on this matter but reality is quite simple and can be summed up very easily.

Religion is utter bollocks and when you are dead you are dead, end of. No one is going to see their long dead mum or indeed sixteen virgins or whatever other nonsense the control freaks want to make them believe.

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

Nobody really knows what happens after we die, all beliefs are down to the people concerned and shouldn't really bother others. On a personal note in the Falklands, gulf and other places most injured or dying people ask for God's help and their mums strangely as she isn't there either. You probably found similar as a firefighter?

No not really, apart from one really weird incident during a training exercise my fire service has been straightforward. 

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

This can get quite deep but the thinking that puts me in the Atheist camp is that if my consciousness was supposed to transcend my death, where was it before I was born? If it didn't exist before I was born, why would I expect it to continue after death?

Before we can answer that question we need to define consciousness and agree on it which is impossible really. 

2 hours ago, Tigerr said:

You are ‘spiritual’, by the sound of it. That’s a broad church, that one.  Very much more common now in our society as the traditional church has fallen into decline. 
The essence of your belief seems to be the subjective experience of consciousness, which we all experience as somehow separate from the physical body, and we can easily be persuaded is transcendent. Thus we may start to imagine, wish for, and then believe in life after death. 
This is of course the religious concept of the soul. Found in nearly all religions, either with or without the overt presence of major deity. It’s hugely important to the fundamentals of eternal life, heaven, and of course hell, the latter having gone a bit out of fashion these days. 
While consciousness exists, there is no evidence at all that it continues after death, rather to the contrary it appears to stop when electro chemical brain activity stops. But the idea it carries on is very very captivating, I think we can all agree on that. It makes life itself easier to bear. 
Oddly enough I’d have thought that belief in life after death would make believers quite unconcerned about death, since it’s just a doorway. But it tends not to be so, because on questioning it turns out that behind the door lies a judge, and the quality of accommodation in eternal life depends on the judges rules. Often it emerges that one of those rules is not opening the door yourself, or indeed letting others do so. 
And that’s the rub in this debate.

The way I see it is I don't know the truth, or rather, I might know the truth but have  forgotten it, in which case I would believe I know but not know I know.

If indeed there is something other than our apparent reality then it seems to have been hidden, in which case if we are in a simulated reality then any proof of it would be part of  that simulation, I have my ideas of what that could be but I must emphasise that I am not aware of any knowledge about that, all the tools I have is emotion,  intuition, logical thinking and personal experience like everyone else. 

30 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

There are some very elequent posts here on this matter but reality is quite simple and can be summed up very easily.

Religion is utter bollocks and when you are dead you are dead, end of. No one is going to see their long dead mum or indeed sixteen virgins or whatever other nonsense the control freaks want to make them believe.

If that's your view I have no problem with that, what I don't want is someone to agree with my views without thinking about it and making their own mind up, I have an aversion to taking things at face value and deffo don't want to try to  persuade anyone that my view is correct 

Edited October 8, 20242 yr by nb Innisfree

13 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

That is one way I suppose but looking at the demographic from the last census when 46.2% of the population defined themselves as Christian (down from 59.3% in 2011) compared to 37.2% who defined themselves as 'no religion' (up from 25.2% in 2011) it could be a close call. Of course there could be a whole load of Christians 'in name only' who would support assisted suicide, I don't know.

I really don't know if I agree with your argument that all Christians would be against assisted dying.

4 hours ago, Justin Smith said:

I really don't know if I agree with your argument that all Christians would be against assisted dying.

I'm not entirely convinced that I 'argued' that all Christians would be against assisted dying, the clue might have been in the the line,"....I don't know....", but I kind of get the feeling that you could start an argument in an empty room (which might explain your approval of Kemi Badenoch since she clearly could as well).

 

I did say Christians 'in name only' since it would be difficult for a committed Christian to approve of assisted dying since it flies totally in the face of the Fifth of 10 'Commandments', you know the one that says,"Thou shalt not Kill". Pragmatic Christians may well choose to ignore it, but since I'm not a Christian, I don't know.

We can sign a DNR form so we should be able to make the similar decision to end our lives.

Everyone who has posted is on the yes side. There are four people who have voted no. I'd love to hear their views, a balanced argument is always good. Maybe they're worried they'll be pounced on if they go against the tide?

If any of them would like to send me a PM with their views I'd happily copy and paste, with guaranteed anonymity.

I promise I would never tell anyone who you are.

I'm worried that we're in a bubble of same thinking people.

52 minutes ago, Sue68 said:

We can sign a DNR form so we should be able to make the similar decision to end our lives.

A word of warning about that.
Whilst it might apply as a hospital in-patient, if you are attended by a Paramedic, First Responder or a similar person then if the conditions are correct then they will instigate CPR and if available use an AED. 
Even in hospital it has and can be overruled if the staff have not been made fully aware.

3 minutes ago, Ange said:

Everyone who has posted is on the yes side. There are four people who have voted no. I'd love to hear their views, a balanced argument is always good. Maybe they're worried they'll be pounced on if they go against the tide?

If any of them would like to send me a PM with their views I'd happily copy and paste, with guaranteed anonymity.

I promise I would never tell anyone who you are.

I'm worried that we're in a bubble of same thinking people.

As I said at the start, this wasn't intended to be a controversial post, it was merely to get some idea of the numbers for and against and, although I'm in the camp of agreeing with it, I can see both sides of the issue. I commented above that a devout Christian may well have difficulty with the proposals since it would be totally counter to the 5th Commandment, although it seems that Christians have been a bit conflicted on this matter for a while. Originally people who committed suicide were not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground as they were viewed to have 'sinned' by breaking the 5th Commandment with the argument that 'Thou Shalt not Kill' included self. That view now seems to have changed within the Church.

 

There does seem to be some misunderstanding regarding 'assisted suicide' as this isn't to say that people themselves are not permitted to commit suicide since they are, it is whether or not someone else should be permitted to assist them which is where it gets more controversial. I can see the need for safeguards and for me the major one would be for the person themselves to administer the lethal dose as I believe happens at Dignitas. A medical Practitioner should be able to supply the product (if they are comfortable doing so) and even the apparatus to deliver it, but it should be the action of the individual that delivers the dose (even if it is by an eye movement of a tetraplegic). 

 

I don't think there is an easy answer to the topic, which is why I said that, in my opinion, there isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' answer, but looking at the responses, which were kept deliberately anonymous to prevent arguments developing, it would suggest that a lot of us in the relevant demographic (like those of us getting old) would support a change in the law. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

As I said at the start, this wasn't intended to be a controversial post, it was merely to get some idea of the numbers for and against and, although I'm in the camp of agreeing with it, I can see both sides of the issue. I commented above that a devout Christian may well have difficulty with the proposals since it would be totally counter to the 5th Commandment, although it seems that Christians have been a bit conflicted on this matter for a while. Originally people who committed suicide were not permitted to be buried in consecrated ground as they were viewed to have 'sinned' by breaking the 5th Commandment with the argument that 'Thou Shalt not Kill' included self. That view now seems to have changed within the Church.

 

There does seem to be some misunderstanding regarding 'assisted suicide' as this isn't to say that people themselves are not permitted to commit suicide since they are, it is whether or not someone else should be permitted to assist them which is where it gets more controversial. I can see the need for safeguards and for me the major one would be for the person themselves to administer the lethal dose as I believe happens at Dignitas. A medical Practitioner should be able to supply the product (if they are comfortable doing so) and even the apparatus to deliver it, but it should be the action of the individual that delivers the dose (even if it is by an eye movement of a tetraplegic). 

 

I don't think there is an easy answer to the topic, which is why I said that, in my opinion, there isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' answer, but looking at the responses, which were kept deliberately anonymous to prevent arguments developing, it would suggest that a lot of us in the relevant demographic (like those of us getting old) would support a change in the law. 

 

 

Apologies if I did wrong.

 

I just hoped that maybe I could give a voice to anyone that voted no but felt uneasy about voicing their views.

 

I voted yes, by the way. I watched my dad die a slow painful death from lung cancer and would love to have given him the same relief that we gave our beloved dog when old age and suffering became too much to bear.

 

I'm genuinely interested in other views, that's all.

9 hours ago, Sue68 said:

We can sign a DNR form so we should be able to make the similar decision to end our lives.

 

No, DNR is not the same at all unless you can guarantee that whatever accident/stroke/ disease etc. you have your heat will stop. If you have an accident or a disease that leaves you in great pain, very badly incapacitated, unable to communicate and so on, the DNR will be no use to you at all. You are expected to just put up with it.

DNR is so last century. 

9 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

A word of warning about that.
Whilst it might apply as a hospital in-patient, if you are attended by a Paramedic, First Responder or a similar person then if the conditions are correct then they will instigate CPR and if available use an AED. 
Even in hospital it has and can be overruled if the staff have not been made fully aware.

My mother was very much in the DNR camp, I made sure it was on her notes atvthe bottom of her bed, my sister apposed this but the doctor abided by mum's wishes

9 hours ago, Ange said:

Apologies if I did wrong.

 

I just hoped that maybe I could give a voice to anyone that voted no but felt uneasy about voicing their views.

 

I voted yes, by the way. I watched my dad die a slow painful death from lung cancer and would love to have given him the same relief that we gave our beloved dog when old age and suffering became too much to bear.

 

I'm genuinely interested in other views, that's all.

No, you didn't do anything wrong, my comment was merely to give some sort of voice to those who might be in the 'no' camp, as in devout Christians. This is a topic where there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers, there are merely answers that might align with my (and your) thinking, and answers that don't, but I'm not going to be telling them that they are 'wrong'.

 

My view was reinforced by three work colleagues who died from MND and should I ever contract that, it is most certainly the way that I wouldn't want to go. Whether I'd have the 'courage', when push comes to shove, to take the lethal dose is a whole different question.

9 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No, you didn't do anything wrong, my comment was merely to give some sort of voice to those who might be in the 'no' camp, as in devout Christians. This is a topic where there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers, there are merely answers that might align with my (and your) thinking, and answers that don't, but I'm not going to be telling them that they are 'wrong'.

 

My view was reinforced by three work colleagues who died from MND and should I ever contract that, it is most certainly the way that I wouldn't want to go. Whether I'd have the 'courage', when push comes to shove, to take the lethal dose is a whole different question.

Your stance is OK, in respect of personal choice.

But it fails to address the problem that people do seek to enforce their own personal choice on others, effectively denying them what might reasonably be regarded as a right. The churches, Christian and Muslim, are quite clear about this, and very organised in lobbying for their view both to the congregation and politically. 

I have no problem at all with others choosing to die in whatever degree of pain they wish, according to whatever personal belief they may have. I respect that right. 

What I do find profoundly wrong is that they should be able, as they are now, to insist that I should die in a similar way, or submit to an entirely arbitrary 'palliative care' that they can not deliver, because they feel their belief is sacred writ. That is a gross denial of my rights, and indefensible in my view. 

This is not acceptable in a rational, civilised secular society, it is an inertial slice of past theocratic power. 

11 hours ago, Sue68 said:

We can sign a DNR form so we should be able to make the similar decision to end our lives.

The argument against that which would be thrown up is the "death" in a DNR is natural i.e. the conditions developed whereas assisted dying is deliberate.  Some might argue as the current law appears to do that assisting (even accompanying) is helping to cause another's death which is clearly currently illegal.  Those of that opinion would say deliberate killing should always be illegal, the only argument I could see them accepting is if the person wasn't helped in anyway.

I'd love to pitch in on the religious aspects of this issue but the rules of this forum don't allow discussion of religion issues, or is that wrong?

58 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

I'd love to pitch in on the religious aspects of this issue but the rules of this forum don't allow discussion of religion issues, or is that wrong?

God knows 🤪

Don't go down the rabbit hole. 

7 hours ago, Tigerr said:

Your stance is OK, in respect of personal choice.

But it fails to address the problem that people do seek to enforce their own personal choice on others, effectively denying them what might reasonably be regarded as a right. The churches, Christian and Muslim, are quite clear about this, and very organised in lobbying for their view both to the congregation and politically. 

I have no problem at all with others choosing to die in whatever degree of pain they wish, according to whatever personal belief they may have. I respect that right. 

What I do find profoundly wrong is that they should be able, as they are now, to insist that I should die in a similar way, or submit to an entirely arbitrary 'palliative care' that they can not deliver, because they feel their belief is sacred writ. That is a gross denial of my rights, and indefensible in my view. 

This is not acceptable in a rational, civilised secular society, it is an inertial slice of past theocratic power. 

Playing something of 'devils advocate' (since my position on the topic is already known), this proposed change in the law isn't to make suicide legal, because that battle was won years ago, it is to cover whether someone else can assist you in your choice. Let's face it the 'elephant in the room' is bl**dy Harold Shipman because before his efforts I have little doubt that 'assisted dying' went on quite regularly, I suspect that it does still go on very discreetly. One person of my acquaintance suffering from cancer was visited by his health visitor to give him his pain medications and 2 hours later he was dead. I'm making no accusations and will not give any further information to identify this individual, but let us just say that it was both a blessed relief....and a co-incidence.

 

One notable opponent to the proposal, and someone who I have a lot of time for, is Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68628274) and whilst I don't necessarily agree with her stance, she has every right to the opinion. There is also the 'slippery slope' argument that once assisted dying is legalised, will it be extended to other conditions? Whilst I fully sympathise with the Dutch woman's dilemma in this story (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-45117163) was euthanasia really the best option? Given the dire state of our Mental Health 'service' in this country I get the feeling that many Trusts would be glad to see the back of some of their patients in this way.

 

It isn't a simple debate but, with the appropriate safeguards, I remain in the legalisation camp.

8 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

There is also the 'slippery slope' argument that once assisted dying is legalised, will it be extended to other conditions?

What does that sentence mean ?

10 minutes ago, Justin Smith said:

What does that sentence mean ?

The meaning is so obvious to me that I wont elaborate.

I don't really understand why it's so controversial. Of course as the critics of the proposal cite, there could be extreme cases in which people with terminal illnesses feel like they're a burden to others and feel pressured into taking their own life. However, surely it's not beyond the wit of the medical profession to come up with a mechanism to prevent that, such a 3 independent doctors including a psychiatrist interviewing the person and perhaps their family before signing off the assisted suicide.